'xSll'?ll 


P0 


/f  #:>V$ 


JC^ 


^ 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/arecriticsrighthOOmlrich 


Are  the  Critics  Right  ? 


Are  the  Critics  Right? 

HISTORICAL  &  CRITICAL  CONSIDERATIONS 

AGAINST 

THE  GRAF-WELLHAUSEN  HYPOTHESIS 


BY 

WILHELM    MOLLER 


WITH  AN  INTRODUCTION  BY 
PROFESSOR  C.  VON   ORELLI,   D.D. 


U7(^ 


TRANSLATED  FROM  THE  GERMAN  BY 
C.    H.   IRWIN,   M.A. 

WITHDRAWN  FROM 
UNIVERSITY  OF  REDLANDS  LIBRARY 


FLEMING   H.   REVELL   COMPANY 

NEW  YORK,  CHICAGO.  TORONTO 


i6.i'  ■- 


y 


u 


kL  A  ^Ma^Jh  J^ 


'^ 


•  :    :       • 


PREFACE  TO  ENGLISH  EDITION 

In  view  of  statements  as  to  the  authorship  and 
date  of  the  books  of  the  Pentateuch  made  by- 
British  supporters  of  the  Higher  Criticism,  it  has 
been  thought  desirable  to  issue  this  translation  of 
the  work  of  one  who  was  formerly  a  follower  of 
Wellhausen.  The  book  has  already  been  trans- 
lated from  its  German  original  into  Danish  and 
Norwegian. 

The  translator  has  added  the  Table  of  Con- 
tents at  the  beginning,  the  sub -headings  of  the 
various  sections  throughout  the  book,  and  the 
Index  at  the  end. 


Mi24??G8 


INTRODUCTION 

I  GLADLY  accede  to  the  wish  of  the  author  that  I 
should  write  a  word  of  introduction  to  the  follow- 
ing pages.  These  pages  are  truly  a  welcome 
indication  that  there  is  in  the  field  of  Old 
Testament  criticism  no  lack  of  independent 
workers  among  the  younger  generation,  who  do 
not  accept  the  theories  offered  by  the  authorities 
of  to-day  as  something  incontrovertible,  but  test 
them  without  prejudice,  and  discover  how  much 
they  contain  that  is  untenable.  Nothing  indeed 
is  more  astonishing  to  me  than  the  readiness  with 
which  even  diligent  explorers  in  this  field  attach 
themselves  to  the  dominant  theory  and  repeat  the 
most  rash  hypotheses  as  if  they  were  part  of  an 
unquestioned  creed.  Under  these  circumstances 
the  elements  of  fact  on  the  other  side  must  be 
emphasised  until  they  receive  their  due  weight. 
This  is  done  by  the  following  treatise,  which 
comprehends  much  that  has  been  said  already  but 
has  never  been  refuted.  A  special  value  attaches 
to  it  from  the  fact  that  the  author  himself  formerly 

vii  b 


viii    ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT  ? 

shared  the  views  which  he  now  opposes,  but  has 
allowed  himself  to  be  convinced  by  the  evidence 
of  the  facts  on  the  other  side.  The  youthful 
temperament,  which  sometimes  betrays  itself  in 
rather  hasty  conclusions  or  in  a  too  absolute  form 
of  judgment,  gives,  on  the  other  hand,  the  benefit 
of  vivacity  to  the  writing,  and  will  not  repel  the 
readers  for  whom  it  is  intended.  On  all  the 
leading  points  I  can  only  agree  with  the  train  of 
thought,  and  I  am  convinced  that  the  weight  of  the 
arguments  here  vindicated  will  be  better  appreci- 
ated by  a  future  generation  of  Protestant  theo- 
logians than  has  been  the  case  in  recent  decades. 
That  this  little  book,  moreover,  may  contribute  to 
a  more  unbiassed  treatment  of  the  inquiry  as  to 
the  origin  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  one  more 
worthy  of  the  high  subject,  is  my  earnest  wish. 

C.  VON  ORELLI,   D.D., 

Professor. 

Basel,  May  2,  1899. 


CONTENTS 


Author's  Preface- 


Origin  of  the  book     . xv 

The  method  not  dogmatical,  but  historical  and  critical  .  xvii 
The  Graf-Wellhausen  theory  and  the  three  codes  of  laws  in 

the  Pentateuch  (JE,  D,  and  P) xviii 

List  of  books  recommended  in  refutation  of  the  modern 

critical  theories       .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .  xxi 


CHAPTER     I 

COMPARISON    OF    THE    LAWS    WITH    THE    HISTORY 

I,  Criticism  of  the  Modern  Date  of  Deuteronomy— 

Wellhausen's  theory,  dating  it  at  time  of  King  Josiah      .          i 
Examination    of   the   narrative    in    2    Kings    xxii.    and 

foil 3 

1.  Cause  of  Josiah's  alarm  at  the  finding  of  the  law      .         3 

Kautzsch's  theory 4 

Untenableness  of  the  view  that  because  a  law  was 

unknown  at  a  particular  time  therefore  it  did  not 
exist    .........         7 

Shown  by  the  analogy  of  J  and  E  .         .         .         .         8 

2   Kings   xxii.    8  implies   that    Hilkiah   knew   the 
book  by  hearsay  .......        10 

2.  Deut.   could    have    been    produced  neither  by  the 

priests  nor  by  the  prophets  of  Josiah's  time  .  .  14 
Kautzsch's  theory  that  it  was  the  work  of  the  prophets  14 
Opposed  by  Kuenen,  who  attributes  it  to  the  priests       14 


:     ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

PAGE 

But  the  profligacy  of  both  priests  and  prophets  of 
that  time  makes  their  authorship  of  Deut.  im- 
possible       ........        i6 

3.  The   Mosaic  authority  attributed  to  Deut.  incon- 

sistent with  the  later  date I7 

Cornill's  view  that  the  name  of  Moses  was  necessary 

to  give  weight  to  Deut 18 

Why  should  the  Mosaic  authorship  impress  such  an 

age  as  that  of  Josiah  ? 19 

4.  The  effect  produced  by  such  a  deception  is  incredible      20 
The  priests,  the  prophets,  the  king,  the  people,  all 

are  deceived         .......       21 

5.  The' contents  of  Deut.   itself  contradict   the  later 

date 25 

{a)  Why  include  the  civil  sphere  in  reforms  planned 

for  religion  and  worship  only  ?        .         .         -25 
The  reformation  of  Josiah's  time   was  chiefly 
abolition  of  idolatry.    But  it  is  not  prohibition 
of  idolatry,  but  unity  of  worship,  which  is  the 

leading  thought  in  Deut 29 

(3)  Individual  injunctions  of  Deut.  contradict  later 

date 32 

The  extermination  of  the  Canaanites  .         .       33 

Laws  about  going  forth  to  war  :  no  mention  of 
a  king  ........       34 

The  injunction  about  the  Amalekites         .         .       36 
References  to  Moses,  to  false  prophets,  and  the 

exile 37 

6.  Distinct  traces  of  Deut.  in  existence  long  before 
623   B.C.,  2  Kings  xviii.  4-6;   2  Kings  xiv.  6; 
Josh.  viii.   30  ;  Hos.   iv.  4,  v.   lO  ;   Amos  iv.  4 ; 
Jer.  vii.  12  ;  i  Sam.  i.-iii.  ;  Judges  xvii.  and  foil.       40 
On  the  critical  theory,  Deut.  is  a  pious  fraud       .         .       50 
Summary 53 

II.  Criticism  of  the  Modern  Dating  of  the  Priestly 
Code — 

A.  Criticism  of  the  modern  result 55 

I.  The  Law  as  read  by  Ezra  (Neh.  viii. -X.)     ...  56 
Wellhausen's  view  that  PC   originated  then  (second 

halfof  fifth  century  B.C.) 59 


CONTENTS  xi 

PAGE 

Views  of  Reuss,  Kayser,  Kautzsch,  and  other  modern 
critics  ........       62 

2.  The  Priestly  Code  itself  contradicts,  by  its  aim,  the 

later  date 66 

3.  The  Priestly  Code  not  at  all  adapted  for  the  purpose 

assigned  to  it  by  the  critics  .....       72 

4.  The  result  attributed  to  PC  quite  incredible  on  the 

critical  theory 75 

5.  PC   could   not    have    originated    with   such   authors 

as  the  critics  assume    ......       80 

6.  Many  particular  enactments   of  PC  are  inexplicable 

on  the  modern  theory  ......  87 

A  pious  fraud  once  more         ......  94 

Summary 95 

B.  Criticism  of  the  modern  auxiliary  hypotheses  which  are 

supposed  to  necessitate  an  early  date  for  PC      .         -99 

(a)  Relation  of  the  prophets  to  the  Priestly  Code     .         .  99 

1.  Does  Jer.  vii.  21  and  foil,  prove  that  PC  could 

not  have  existed  in  Jeremiah's  time  ?  .         .      lOO 

2.  Did  the  prophets  really  assume  a  hostile  attitude 

toward  sacrifice  ? 106 

3.  The   apparent  hostility  of  the  prophets  directed 

not  against  sacrifice  in  itself,  but  against  sacrifice 
as  a  substitute  for  obedience      .         .         .         .112 
{P)  Relation  of  Ezek.  xl.-xlviii.  (Ezekiel's  vision)  to  the 

Priestly  Code 114 

1.  The   argument    that    PC    is   later   than    Ezekiel 

proves  too  much        .         .         .         .         .         '115 
On  the  same  principle  Ezekiel  could  not  have 
been  acquainted  with  the  Books  of  the  Covenant 

or  with  Deut 116 

Ezekiel  presupposes  a  previous  ritual  legislation  .      120 
Summary 123 

2.  The  degradation  of  priests  to  Levites  (Ezek.  xliv. 

4  and  foil.)  one  of  the  principal  supports   of 
modern  criticism       .         .         .         .         .         .124 

{a)  But  this  degradation  implies  disobedience  to  a 
previous    enactment  —  an    enactment    only 

found  in  PC 127 

{d)  Ezek.  xlviii.  ii,  13,  presupposes  PC      .         .      128 
{c)  The   word    "Levite"  could   not   have  been 

chosen  as  a  mark  of  punishment  .         .         .129 


xii    ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

PACK 

(d)  Incredible  that  Ezekiel  could  have  introduced 

the  distinction     .         .         .         .         .         .129 

{e)    'Ezra.  ii.  does  not  support  the  critical  view       .      133 
(/)  The    critical   theory   credits   the   authors   of 

PC  with  astounding  folly     .         .         .         -133 
The  true  sequence  is  P — Ezekiel,  not  Ezekiel — P     140 
(7)  Relation   of  the   history,  down  to  B.C.  444,  to  the 

Priestly  Code 141 

1.  Are  there  no  traces  of  PC  in  the  history  before  444?    141 
The  critics'  "  history"  is  itself  quite  unhistorical .      144 

2.  That  the  enactments  of  PC  were  violated  is  no 

proof  that  they  did  not  exist      .         .         .         .150 

III.  Criticism  of  the  Modern  Dating  of  the  Books 
OF  THE  Covenant — 

1,  Consideration  of  Ex.  xx.  24     .         .         .         .         .      i6l 
This  date  is  contradicted  by  the  principles  applied 

by  the  critics  to  Deut.  and  PC      .         .         .         ,161 

2.  Impossible  to  place  the  Books  of  the  Covenant  so  late     166 


CHAPTER    II 

comparison  of  the  laws  WITH  ONE  ANOTHER 

The  modern  sequence  is  :  Books  of  the  Covenant,  Deut.,  P   .     171 

1.  General  observations — 

(a)  P  alone  contains  ritual  legislation,  therefore  it  cannot 

be  described  as  an  expansion  of  the  other  two  .      1 72 

{d)  The  argument  that  Deut.  makes  no  reference  to  P 

cuts  both  ways 173 

2.  Discussion  of  particular  passages    .         .         .         .         -174 

The  ark  (Deut.  X.) 174 

Clean  and  unclean  .         .         .         .         .         .         .176 

The  Laws  about  the  Feasts 178 

The  critical  theory  that  the  three  great  Feasts  were 
merely  harvest  festivals   .         .         .         .         .         -179 

How  then  did  they  suddenly  come  to  have  an  historical 
reference  ?........      180 

The  names  of  the  Feasts  only  to  be  explained  by  the 
historical  reference 182 


CONTENTS  xiii 

PAGE 

The  dates  prescribed  for  the   Feasts  presuppose   the 
enactments  of  P       .         .         .         .         .         .         .     185 

Laws  which  are  only  possible  if  PC  comes  at  the  time  of 

the  wandering  in  the  wilderness,  and  Deut.  shortly  before 

the  entrance  into  Palestine      .         .         .         .         .         .      1S8 

The  slaying  of  the  paschal  lamb,  and  the  assembly  at  tlie 

holy  place 1S8 

The  central  sanctuary       .         .         .         .         .         .         .189 

Wellhausen's  theory  that  down  to  the  seventh  century  every 

killing  was  a  sacrifice,  but  that  after  that  sacrifices  must 

only  be  offered  at  the  central  sanctuary  ,         .         .         .190 
The  permission  in  Deut.  xii.  to  sacrifice  anywhere  proves 

that  Deut.  was  later  than  PC 193 

The  redemption  of  the  first-born  in  Deut.  xiv.  is  further 

evidence  of  the  same       .......      194 

Difficulties  which  are  inexplicable  except  on  the  assumption 

of  the  priority  of  PC        .  .  .  .  .  .  .196 

The  distinction  between  priests  and  Levites        .         .         .      196 
The  difference  between   PC  and  Deut.   in  regard  to  the 

tithe 201 


CONCLUSION 

Summary  of  previous  argument 203 

The  conclusions  of  criticism  make  the  idea  of  a  revelation 
untenable ..........     206 

Wellhausen's  logical  conclusions  result  in  the  overthrow  of 
his  whole  theory,  and  prepare  for  the  acceptance  of  the 
Mosaic  authorship  (in  essential  structure  at  least)  of  the 
disputed  books 210 

Modern  criticism  not  scientific,  but,  as  in  the  case  of  Vatke, 
the  result  of  dogmatic  preconceptions  .         .         .          .213 

Natural  development  of  religion  v.  Divine  revelation      .         .     214 


PREFACE 

I  AM  constrained  to  publish  the  following  long- 
planned  pamphlet.  After  the  experiences  which 
other  opponents  of  the  Graf-Wellhausen  hypothesis 
have  had  with  their  writings,  I  can  scarcely  hope 
that  my  "Considerations"  will  receive  any  attention 
from  the  representatives  of  the  modern  Old 
Testament  school.  This  little  book  is  therefore, 
at  the  outset,  addressed  not  to  them  at  all,  but 
to  the  students  who  are  for  the  moment  entirely 
dependent  on  their  professors.  I  know  from  my 
own  experience,  as  well  as  from  many  acquaint- 
ances, that  little  encouragement  is  given  to 
students  of  the  Old  Testament  even  to  take  in 
their  hand  for  once  a  book  of  a  different  school. 
I  myself  have  been  in  several  cases  advised 
against  it  by  professors.  Now  it  cannot  for  a 
moment  be  doubted  that  it  is  utterly  unscientific 
to  seek  to  know  one's  opponent  from  polemical 
writings  only. 

The  accompanying   treatise  will,  it  is  hoped, 
help    to   remove   this    one-sidedness,    and    create 

^  XV 


XVI 


ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 


in  students  a  desire  to  study  even  the  literature 
on  the  other  side,  but  above  all  to  make  them 
hesitate  in  the  confidence  with  which  they  follow 
modern  criticism.  I  myself  was  immovably 
convinced  of  the  irrefutable  correctness  of  the 
Graf-Wellhausen  hypothesis,  so  long  as  I  allowed 
it  alone  to  have  an  effect  upon  me.  But  after 
my  attention  was  once  directed  to  its  weaknesses 
(first  by  Kohler  in  Erlangen),  after  I  had  studied 
with  some  thoroughness  the  scientific  literature 
on  the  other  side,  this  hypothesis  seemed  to  me 
more  and  more  monstrous.  By  discussions  on 
the  subject  in  the  Theological  Societies  at 
Erlangen  and  Halle,  in  the  Tholuck  Institute  at 
Halle,  and  in  the  Theological  Seminary  at 
Wittenberg,  as  well  as  by  frequent  conversations 
with  friends  and  acquaintances,  my  own  view 
was  confirmed  and  elucidated,  so  that  I  hope 
that  the  change  which  took  place  in  my  case  may 
and  will  be  effected  in  others  also. 

I  know  indeed  from  my  own  theological 
development  that  a  dogmatic  treatment  would 
be  of  little  use  and  efficacy  in  this  case.  I 
certainly  should  not  have  been  converted  by  it 
in  my  first  college  terms  ;  for  I  had  reached  the 
conviction  that  the  modern  conception  of  the 
Old  Testament  did  not  necessarily  exclude 
revelation,  but  that  for  the  rest  the  dogmatic 
view  would   have   to   be  modified  in  accordance 


PREFACE 


XVll 


with  the  assured  historical  results.  Hence  even 
in  the  following  pages  I  proceed  not  dogmatically, 
but  purely  by  the  historical-critical  method. 

I  should  make  the  effect  of  my  treatise  illusory 
from  the  start  if  I  arranged  it  apologetically,  and 
sought  to  defend  in  succession  the  points  attacked 
by  Wellhausen.  In  that  way  the  appearance  of 
dogmatic  bias  and  energetic  refinement,  which  so 
readily  affects  the  apologete,  might  too  easily 
arise  ;  and  moreover  the  ingenious  scheme  of  Well- 
hausen would  still  exercise  its  attractive  power. 

The  way  from  which  I  anticipate  most  result 
is  to  put  the  opponent  himself  on  the  defensive, 
and  thus  at  once  to  take  up  the  offensive.  If 
one  is  only  once  thoroughly  convinced  that  the 
Graf- Wellhausen  hypothesis  involves  us  in  endless 
difficulties,  one  is  the  more  disposed  to  pay 
attention  to  apologetic  efforts.  The  whole  force 
of  our  treatise,  at  any  rate,  lies  in  the  attack  on 
the  modern  hypothesis. 

The  aim  and  the  constituency  of  the  booklet 
permit,  nay  demand,  that  we  should  not  attempt 
completeness  or  exhaustive  treatment.  The 
terseness  of  the  book  would  otherwise  suffer  ;  it 
would  remain  unread.  I  have  fully  attained  my 
purpose,  if  the  points  of  the  modern  hypothesis 
here  specified  are  found  to  be  difficulties.  The 
rest  will  then  follow  of  itself 

The  modern   theory    I    assume  throughout  as 


XVIU 


ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 


known  to  my  readers.  In  the  discrimination  of 
sources,  their  nomenclature  and  dates,  Kautzsch's 
Translation  of  the  Bible  has  been  taken  as  a  basis. 
The  same  is  the  case,  as  a  rule,  with  Biblical 
quotations.  The  quotations  from  Kautzsch  refer 
to  his  Abriss  der  Geschichte  des  altestamentlichen 
Schrifttums  ("  Sketch  of  the  History  of  the  Old 
Testament  Scriptures  ")  in  the  Supplements  to  his 
Translation  of  the  Bible}  They  shall  appear 
pretty  often,  not  only  because  this  Bible  work 
will  be  in  the  hands  of  most  students,  but,  above 
all,  because  it  professes  to  contain  "the  actual 
results  of  the  strictly  scientific  Biblical  inquiry " 
(comp.  the  first  preface  in  the  Supplements,  p. 
viii.).  There  is,  besides,  little  quotation  from 
writings  of  followers  or  of  opponents  of  the 
modern  theory,  because,  in  my  judgment,  the 
value  of  a  treatise  does  not  depend  upon  the 
multitude  of  quotations  which  it  gives. 

A  few  words,  finally,  about  the  plan  of  the 
whole.  The  peculiar  attraction  of  the  Graf- 
Wellhausen  hypothesis  consists  first  in  the 
apparent  agreement  between  law  and  history, 
and  then  in  the  apparently  smooth  development 
of  the  various  collections  of  laws.  As  is  well 
known,  three  such  collections  are  assumed  in 
the  Pentateuch  : — 

^  The  separate  edition  contains  no  essential  alterations  on  the 
points  of  importance  to  us. 


PREFACE  xix 

1.  The  two  so-called  Books  of  the  Covenant, 
Ex.  xx.-xxiii.  and  Ex.  xxxiv.  lO,  14-26,  wrought 
together  into  the  original  sources  JE  (Jahwist 
and  Elohist)  which  existed  before  the  prophetic 
writings. 

2.  Deuteronomy  (D). 

3.  The  Priestly  Code  (P  or  PC)  which,  besides 
a  brief  prefatory  history,  contains  the  injunctions, 
Ex.  xxv.-xxxi.  ;  xxxv.-xl. ;  Lev.  i.-xxvii.  ;  Num. 
i.-x.  28  ;  XV. ;  xviii.-xix.  ;  xxv.  6-xxxi.  ;  xxxiii.- 
xxxvi.  (only  the  larger  sections  which  are 
inter-related  are  enumerated). 

The  Books  of  the  Covenant  are  then  said  to 
agree  with  the  historical  circumstances  down  to 
the  reformation  of  worship  under  Josiah  (623 
B.C.),  described  in  2  Kings  xxii.  et  seq.,  and  also 
with  the  patriarchal  narratives  of  JE  originating 
in  this  period.  A  similar  harmony  between  law 
and  history  is  alleged  to  exist  in  the  case  of  D 
since  that  reformation  of  worship,  and  in  the  case 
of  P  since  the  publication  of  the  law  under  Ezra 
(comp.  Neh.  viii.-x.,  444  B.C.),  while  the  history 
before  the  period  623,  and  especially  444,  is  said 
not  only  to  be  in  glaring  opposition  to  the 
requirements  of  D,  and  especially  P,  but  also  not 
to  suggest  the  slightest  acquaintance  with  them. 
If  even  before  Wellhausen  there  was  agreement 
about  the  placing  of  the  Books  of  the  Covenant 
and    Deuteronomy,  inasmuch   as,   on    account   of 


XX 


ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 


their  harmony  with  the  history,  the  former  were 
placed  in  the  period  before  the  major  prophets 
and  the  latter  in  the  seventh  century  B.C.,  it  was 
clear  how  enticing  and  alluring  the  Wellhausen 
hypothesis  must  be,  which,  by  assigning  the 
Priestly  Code  to  the  exilic  and  post-exilic  period, 
extended  that  harmony  between  law  and  history 
even  to  this  third  collection  of  laws. 

The  Wellhausen  arrangement  is  really  only 
the  necessary  key -stone  of  the  building  which 
was  already  carried  so  far.  And,  vice  versa^  if 
there  had  not  previously  been  agreement  in  the 
assumptions  on  which  Wellhausen  builds  his  plan, 
the  general  spread  of  the  Wellhausen  hypothesis 
would  be  incomprehensible  ;  but  it  is  only  the 
necessary  consequence  of  the  previous  assumptions, 
and  must  have  emerged  sooner  or  later.  For 
this  reason,  however,  we  must  also  necessarily 
extend  our  examination  to  the  whole.  In  the 
first  part  this  will  be  directed  to  the  question 
whether  the  laws  could  have  really  originated  in 
the  period  in  which  modern  criticism  places  them, 
and  this  part  again  will  naturally  divide  itself 
into  three  sections,  in  which  the  examination  will 
be  successively  made  with  regard  to  each  of  the 
collections  of  laws.  If,  then,  only  in  one  passage 
that  alleged  agreement  between  law  and  history 
should  be  proved  to  be  an  error,  if  only  in  one 
group  of  laws,  namely  D,  the    untenableness  of 


PREFACE  xxi 

the  modern  dating  should  be  shown,  this  must 
inflict  a  perceptible  blow  on  the  whole  of  modern 
criticism.  For  that  which  is  peculiarly  convincing 
in  the  Graf-Wellhausen  hypothesis  lies  precisely 
in  this  threefold  harmony  between  law  and  history. 

If  one  is  convinced  on  all  points  that  this  is 
actually  non-existent,  that  even  on  the  principles 
of  modern  criticism  it  is  impossible  that  all  the 
three  groups  of  laws  could  have  arisen  at  the 
time  to  which  their  origin  is  assigned,  there  still 
remains  a  comparison  of  the  laws  with  one  another 
which,  according  to  Wellhausen,  must  necessarily 
lead  to  the  sequence :  Books  of  the  Covenant, 
Deuteronomy,  Priestly  Code.  This  assertion  will 
be  examined  in  our  second  part. 

Some  of  the  works  which  I  have  most  used 
against  modern  criticism  are  enumerated  below, 
and  strongly  recommended  for  study.  In  them 
many,  if  not  all,  of  the  thoughts  here  put  forward 
have  already  been  expressed,  but  have  hitherto 
remained  ineffectual  in  their  isolation.  The 
choice  of  the  books  mentioned  has  been  guided 
by  the  influence  which  they  have  exercised  upon 
the  author. 

BOOKS    RECOMMENDED 

Baudissin. — Geschichte  des  alttestamentlichen  Priester turns. 
Especially  noteworthy  is  the  section,  "  The  Priesthood 
in  Ezekiel,"  pp.  105  ff. 


xxii   ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT  ? 

Bredenkamp.  —  Gesefz  und  Propheten.  Highly  recom- 
mended. 

Delitzsch. — Pentateuch-kritische  Studien  in  the  Zeitschrift 
fur  kirchliche  Wissenschaft  und  Leben,  1880.  Well 
worth  reading. 

DiLLMANN. — Die  Biicher  Numeric  Deuteronomium  und 
Josua^  with  an  appendix  on  the  composition  of  the 
Hexateuch. 

Havernick. — Specielle  Einleitung  zuin  Pentateuch. 

Hengstenberg. — Beitrdge  zur  Einleitung  i?ts  alte  Testa- 
ment^ vols.  ii.  and  iii.  (on  the  authenticity  of  the 
Pentateuch). 

In  the  last  two  works  many  individual  objections  of 
criticism  are  so  convincingly  and  conclusively  refuted, 
that  it  is  quite  incomprehensible  how  they  can  be 
brought  forward  again  and  again  as  if  no  answer  had 
ever  been  made  to  them. 

Kleinert. — Zurn  Deuteronomium. 

Klostermann. — Beitrdge  zur  Entstehungsgeschichte  des 
Pejitateuch  in  the  Neue  Kirchliche  Zeitschrift.,  1890- 
1897  (cf.  especially  No.  2,  "  Der  sichere  Ausgangs- 
punkt  fiir  die  kiinftige  Pentateuchkritik,"  1892;  and 
No.  7,  "Heiligtums-  und  Lagerordnung,"  1897). 

Kohler. — Lehrbuch  der  biblischeit  Geschichte  des  Alien 
Testaments.  Indispensable  as  a  book  of  reference. 
Especially  valuable  are  the  notes  in  the  third  vol. 

J.  Robertson. — The  Early  Religion  of  Israel.,  translated 
by  V.  Orelli.  Dillmann  says  of  this  book,  that  it 
strikes  the  nail  on  the  head.  Especially  worthy  of 
notice  is  the  positive  construction. 

Fr.  W.  Schulz. — Das  Deuteronomium. 

Schumann. — Die  Wellhatisensche  Pentateuchtheorie. 

The  Strack-Zockler  Commentaries^  especially  those  of 
Oettli  and  v.  Orelli. 


CHAPTER    I 

COMPARISON   OF   THE   LAWS   WITH   THE    HISTORY 

I.   Criticism  of  the  Modern  Date  of  Deuteronomy 

We  begin  with  an  inquiry  regarding  Deuteronomy. 
To  commence  here  appeals  to  me  personally, 
because  it  was  on  this  point  that  I  first  became 
distrustful  of  modern  criticism.  But  the  chief 
reason  is  that  Deut.  is,  with  the  critics,  the 
firm  foundation  on  which  they  build  the  super- 
structure. 

In  Wellhausen's  Prolego^nena  (the  4th  edition 
of  1895  is  here  quoted),  p.  9,  this  sentence  occurs  : 
"  As  to  the  origin  of  Deuteronomy  little  doubt 
now  prevails ;  in  all  circles  where  recognition  of 
scientific  results  is  at  all  to  be  depended  on,  it  is 
admitted  that  it  was  produced  at  the  time  in 
which  it  was  discovered,  and  that  it  was  made  the 
basis  for  the  reformation  of  King  Josiah."  This 
certainly  sounds  very  promising  for  us  !  But  we 
do    not   allow  ourselves   to  be   alarmed   by  such 

B 


2     .ARE  THEE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

triumphant  and  self-conscious  utterances  of  our 
opponents,  and  maintain  on  the  contrary  that  any 
one  who  declares  Kleinert's  book  Zum  Deutero- 
nomiiim  and  Delitzsch's  article  (as  above  named, 
No.  II,"  The  Code  of  Laws  in  Deuteronomy ") 
unscientific  simply  because  they  oppose  the 
modern  date,  shows  thereby  that  he  is  utterly 
lacking  in  unprejudiced  judgment  of  what  is,  and 
what  is  not,  scientific  work.  We  remember  also 
that  in  most  recent  times  the  modern  date  of 
Deuteronomy  has  been  most  vigorously  contested 
by  men  like  Klostermann  (as  above),  Kohler  (as 
above),  and  Robertson  (as  above). 

So  much  by  way  of  explanation.  For  the 
rest  we  do  not  consider  it  superfluous,  even  at 
the  risk  of  being  regarded  as  unscientific  by 
Wellhausen,  to  undertake  once  more  an  examina- 
tion into  the  date  of  the  origin  of  Deuteronomy. 
And  we  hope,  by  purely  scientific  method,  to 
show  this  much  at  least — that  there  are  the 
greatest  possible  difficulties  in  the  way  of  placing 
it  in  the  seventh  century  B.C. 

In  the  first  place,  there  is  no  question  that 
Deuteronomy  itself  professes  to  be  a  speech  which 
Moses  addressed  to  the  people  on  the  threshold 
of  the  Holy  Land  shortly  before  his  death,  in 
which  he  put  before  them  once  more  God's  merci- 
ful dealings  and  also  the  obligations  resulting 
therefrom,  especially  that    of   unity  of   worship. 


2  KINGS  XXII.  3 

According   to    modern   criticism,  however,  this   is 

merely  a  cloak.      The  narrative  in  2  Kings  xxii. 

and    foil.,    as    well    as    Deut.   itself,   are    said   to 

indicate    clearly    that    it    had    originated    but    a 

short  time   before  its   discovery  in   the  year  623. 

Let   us   therefore   in  the   first   place  examine  the 

narrative  in   2  Kings  xxii.  and  foil.,  which  even 

according  to  modern   criticism   is  to  be  regarded 

as  authentic  in  the  most  essential  points. 

I.   According  to   this,  Josiah   the   king  in   the  Examina- 
tion of 
eighteenth  year  of  his   reign   (623  B.C.)  has  sent  2  Kings 

Shaphan    the   scribe    to    the    temple    on    money  ^^^"   ' 

matters;    there   the   high-priest    Hilkiah    says   to 

him,  "  I  have  found  the  book  of  the  law  in   the 

house  of  the  Lord  "  (ver.  8).      Shaphan  reads  it, 

returns  to  the  king  and   reports  to  him  about  his 

errand  ;  then  he  adds,  "  Hilkiah  the  priest  hath 

delivered  me  a  book  "  (ver.  i  o),  and  reads  it  before 

the   king.       The   king   is   terribly   alarmed   at   its 

contents,   rends  his    clothes,  and   commands    five 

persons,    among  them   Hilkiah  and    Shaphan,  to 

inquire   of   Jahwe   concerning   the   words   of  the 

book  for  himself  and  for  the  people  and  for  all 

Judah,  "  for  great  is  the  wrath  of  the  Lord  that 

is  kindled  against  us,  because  our  fathers  have  not 

hearkened  unto  the  words  of  this  book  "  (ver.  13). 

The  messengers  betake  themselves  to  Huldah  the 

prophetess,  who  foretells  misfortune,  and  announces 

that  all    the    threatenings  of   the  book   shall    be 


4      ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

fulfilled,   "because   they  have   forsaken   Me,   and 
have  burned  incense  unto  other  gods"  (ver.  17). 
But  because  Josiah  has  humbled  himself  and  has 
shown  himself  penitent,  the  trouble  shall  not  take 
place  until  after  his  death.     Then  the  book  of  the 
law  which  has  been  found  is  read  in  an  assembly 
of  the  people,  and  the  king  pledges  himself  with 
his  whole  people  to  obey  faithfully  the  commands 
of  Jahwe,  "  to  walk  after  the   Lord,  and  to  keep 
His  commandments  and  His  testimonies  and  His 
statutes  with  all  their  heart  and  all  their  soul,  to 
perform   the    words    of  this   covenant    that   were 
written  in  this  book  "  (xxiii.  3).      And  now  begins 
the  purification  of  worship  and  the  overthrow  of 
idolatry.      After  this  a  passover  is  observed    ac- 
cording to  this  Book  of  the  Covenant  (xxiii.  21), 
such  as  had  not  been  held  since  the  days  of  the 
Judges,  and  finally  a  check  is   put   upon  witch- 
craft, and  the  idols  are  exterminated.     So  far  the 
narrative,  which  should  be  read  in  detail.     This 
much  at  least  is  certain  from  it — that  the  book  of 
the  law  was  unknown,  not  only  to  Shaphan  and 
the  people,  but  also  to  the  king.      So  far  I  am  in 
agreement    with     modern    criticism.       Thus,    for 
example,  Kautzsch  {Abriss,  p.  167)  says  : — "  It  is 
clear  that  the  violent  emotion,  the  deep  sorrow  of 
the  king,  can  only  be  explained  by  the  fact  that 
from  the  reading  of  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  he 
was  learning  something  quite  new,  which  was  in 


CAUSE  OF  JOSIAH'S  ALARM     5 

entire  opposition  to  the  prevailing  practice."  But 
when  Kautzsch  continues,  "  This  new  element  is 
the  demand  for  the  concentration  of  worship  in 
one  place,  and  at  the  same  time  the  requirement 
of  a  thorough  putting  away  of  all  remnants  of  the 
future  nature-worship,"  I  am  compelled  to  see 
here  a  distortion  of  matters  of  fact.  Kautzsch 
would  be  right  if  in  the  narrative  2  Kings  xxii. 
and  foil.,  generally  or  prominently,  the  abolition 
of  the  worship  of  Jahwe  in  "  high  places "  was 
treated  of  (comp.  2  Kings  xviii.  4-6  with  ver.  22). 
If  we  read  2  Kings  xxii.  and  foil,  without  prejudice 
we  must  find  the  new  element  which  so  alarmed 
the  king,  not  in  the  demand  for  concentration  of 
worship,  but  in  the  prohibition  of  idolatry  and 
every  form  of  nature-worship.  True,  it  is  stated 
in  xxiii.  8  that  Josiah  defiled  the  high  places 
where  the  priests  had  burned  incense.  But  that 
this  act  serves  not  for  the  concentration  of  worship, 
but  for  the  overthrow  of  idolatry,  is  clear  from 
xxii.  17,  where  we  are  told  that  they  offered  in- 
cense not  to  Jahwe,  but  to  idols.  This  very 
verse,  in  which  the  blame  is  laid  upon  the  whole 
people,  does  not  say  a  word  about  any  breach  of 
the  commandment  for  unity  of  worship.  Corre- 
sponding with  this  is  the  description  in  xxiii.  4 
and  foil.,  which  plainly  shows  that  the  refer- 
ence is  to  actual  idolatry  (comp.  xxiii.  4,  5,  10, 
13,  24). 


6      ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

Moreover,  let  it  not  be  said  that  it  is  peculiar 
to  the  Deuteronomic  mode  of  treatment,  to  see  in 
the  worship  of  Jahwe  in  high  places  simply 
idolatry.  It  could  not  possibly  occur  to  any  one 
who  wrote  in  the  sense  of  Deuteronomy  to  confuse 
the  one  with  the  other ;  for  Deuteronomy  dis- 
tinguishes them.  In  chapter  xii.  it  directs  itself 
against  the  worship  of  Jahwe  in  high  places,  and 
in  chapter  xiii.  against  idolatry.  If  it  cannot  be 
doubted  for  a  moment  from  2  Kings  xxii.  and 
foil,  that  actual  idolatry  had  taken  place  (as  at 
that  time  worship  of  Jahwe  in  high  places  cannot 
any  longer  be  proved  with  certainty),  if  the  idols 
are  expressly  named  (Baal,  Sun,  Moon,  the  Con- 
stellations, all  the  host  of  heaven,  Molech,  Astarte, 
Chemosh),  then  it  is  indeed  an  extraordinary  idea 
that  the  king  should  have  been  so  excited  because 
Jahwe  had  been  worshipped  at  several  places 
instead  of  one,  and  not  because  they  had  forsaken 
Jahwe  and  gone  after  other  gods.  I  can  only 
see,  therefore,  in  the  assumption  ol  criticism  a 
violence  to  the  text,  arising  from  the  effort  to 
make  the  origin  of  Deuteronomy  probable  shortly 
before  623.  We  shall  return  to  this,  and  only 
add  here  that  where  in  the  chapter  2  Kings  xxiii. 
the  reference  is  to  the  worship  of  Jahwe,  it  only 
appears  in  the  central  sanctuary,  so  that  we  can 
only  speak  here  of  a  purification  of  worship,  but 
not  at   all   of  a   concentration    of  worship.       In 


AN  UNTENABLE  MAXIM        7 

short,  the  new  thing  at  which  the  king  was  so 
much  alarmed  cannot,  according  to  the  narrative 
in  2  Kings  xxii.  and  foil.,  be  "  the  requirement  to 
concentrate  worship  in  a  single  place,"  but  only 
the  prohibition  of  idolatry  in  the  high  places  and 
the  impure  worship  in  Jerusalem,  together  with 
the  punishments  threatened  for  its  infringement. 
To  sum  up,  we  thus  find  ourselves  compelled  to 
differ  with  criticism  as  to  the  new  element  which 
was  contained  for  the  king  in  the  book  of  the  law 
— how  important  this  is  will  appear  under  ^  5  {a) — 
but  we  agree  with  it  in  this,  "  that  he  perceived  in 
the  reading  of  the  book  of  the  law  something 
quite  new,  which  was  in  entire  opposition  to  the 
prevailing  practice."  Yet  here  a  serious  difference 
again  appears. 

Criticism,  namely,  applies  here  a  maxim  which 
it  often  uses,  the  untenableness  of  which  appears 
with  special  clearness  from  this  passage.  It 
maintains  that  if  a  supposed  ancient  law  can  be 
proved  to  be  unknown  at  a  particular  time,  so 
that  there  is  no  hesitation  even  on  the  part  of  the 
most  pious  in  violating  it,  it  follows  that  it  must 
be  of  more  recent  date.  Hence  in  the  case  before 
us  there  could  be  no  reference  to  a  merely  lost 
book  of  the  law ;  it  must  have  been  written 
shortly  before  its  discovery,  and  thus  they  arrive 
at  the  assertion  that  Deuteronomy  only  originated 
in  the  seventh  century  B.C.      We  must  meet  with 


8      ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

an  absolute  denial  this  assertion  of  criticism.  The 
original  writings  J  and  E  ^  are  now  dated  previous 
to  the  major  prophets,  and  this,  too,  together  with 
the  laws  which  they  contain.  Now  let  us  read 
passages  like  Ex.  xxxiv.  14-17:  "Thou  shalt 
worship  no  other  god  :  for  the  Lord  whose  name 
is  Jealous,  is  a  jealous  God  :  lest  thou  make  a 
covenant  with  the  inhabitants  of  the  land,  and 
they  go  a  whoring  after  their  gods,  and  do  sacrifice 
unto  their  gods,  and  one  call  thee,  and  thou  eat  of 
his  sacrifice;  and  thou  take  of  their  daughters 
unto  thy  sons,  and  their  daughters  go  a  whoring 
after  their  gods,  and  make  thy  sons  go  a  whoring 
after  their  gods.  Thou  shalt  make  thee  no  molten 
gods."  According  to  Cornill  {Einleitung  in  das 
Alte  Testament,  2nd  ed.)  vers.  10-14  also  certainly 
belong  to  J  ;  we  therefore  quote  also  vers.  12  and 
13:  "  Take  heed  to  thyself,  lest  thou  make  a 
covenant  with  the  inhabitants  of  the  land  whither 
thou  goest,  lest  it  be  for  a  snare  in  the  midst  of 
thee :  but  ye  shall  destroy  their  altars,  break  their 
images,  and  cut  down  their  groves."  We  may 
also  compare  Ex.  xx.  3  and  foil.,  "  Thou  shalt 
have  no  other  gods  before  Me.  Thou  shalt  not 
make  unto  thee  any  graven  image,  or  any  like- 
ness of  anything  that  is  in  heaven  above,  or  that 
is  in  the  earth  beneath,  or  that  is  in  the  water 
under  the  earth  :  thou  shalt  not  bow  down  thyself 

1  See  Preface. 


WHY  NOT  ALSO  J  AND  E  ?      9 

to  them,  nor  serve  them  "  ;  xxii.  i8,  "Thou  shalt 
not  suffer  a  witch  to  live "  ;  xxii.  20,  "  He  that 
sacrificeth  unto  any  god,  save  unto  the  Lord  only, 
he  shall  be  utterly  destroyed  "  ;  xxiii.  24,  "  Thou 
shalt  not  bow  down  to  their  (the  Canaanites') 
gods,  nor  serve  them,  nor  do  after  their  works  : 
but  thou  shalt  utterly  overthrow  them,  and  quite 
break  down  their  images";  xxiii.32,33,  "Thou  shalt 
make  no  covenant  with  them,  nor  with  their  gods. 
They  shall  not  dwell  in  thy  land,  lest  they  make 
thee  sin  against  Me  :  for  if  thou  serve  their  gods, 
it  will  surely  be  a  snare  unto  thee";  xxiii.  13, 
"  And  in  all  things  that  I  have  said  unto  you,  be 
circumspect :  and  make  no  mention  of  the  name 
of  other  gods,  neither  let  it  be  heard  out  of  thy 
mouth."  I  think  that,  had  King  Josiah  known 
these  laws,  he  must  have  seen  from  them  quite  as 
well  as  from  Deut.  that  the  practice  (2  Kings 
xxiii.  4  and  foil.)  was  in  the  rudest  opposition 
to  the  Divine  command.  Plainly,  therefore,  he 
knew  the  two  Books  of  the  Covenant  (Ex.  xx.- 
xxiii. ;  xxxiv.  10-26)  just  as  little  as  Deut. 
If  from  this  the  conclusion  is  not  drawn  that 
these  books  could  not  have  previously  existed, 
why  should  it  be  drawn  for  Deut.  ?  If,  how- 
ever, the  latter  is  done,  let  us  at  least  be  con- 
sistent, and  admit  that  J  and  E  must  have 
similarly  originated  in  the  seventh  century  ;  but 
this  on  other  grounds  has  to  be  left  alone.     This, 


10    ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

however,  shows  the  untenableness  of  that  maxim 
of  criticism.  We  will  note  for  future  use  "  that  not 
merely  the  low  country  but  even  the  capital  and 
the  temple  "  could  be  "  actually  crammed  full  with 
the  signs  of  a  naturalistic  and  merely  heathen 
idolatry — and  all  this  under  the  eyes  of  a  king  as 
pious  as  Josiah,  and  under  the  eyes  of  the  temple 
priesthood!"  (comp.  Kautzsch,  as  above,  p.  167), 
and  that  nevertheless,  according  to  modern 
criticism,  the  Books  of  the  Covenant,  which  con- 
demned most  emphatically  such  conduct,  were 
regarded  for  centuries  as  Mosaic.  For  the  ques- 
tion immediately  before  us,  however,  this  much 
results,  that  notwithstanding  the  narrative  in  2 
Kings  xxii.  and  foil.,  Deut  may,  with  equal 
reason  with  the  Books  of  the  Covenant,  have 
originated  earlier  and  been  already  in  force,  as  is 
conceded  by  criticism  in  the  case  of  the  latter. 

But  our  narrative  in  2  Kings  xxii.  and  foil, 
carries  us  a  step  farther  ;  it  indicates  that  in  the 
book  found  by  Hilkiah  we  have  not  to  consider 
something  totally  new,  but  that  the  reference  is 
actually  to  the  re-discovery  of  a  book  which  has 
been  lost,  of  the  existence  of  which  it  is  true 
neither  Shaphan,  nor  the  king,  nor  the  people,  but 
certainly  the  high-priest  Hilkiah,  still  knew  ;  for 
he  speaks  not  of  "  a  book,"  as  Shaphan  does  (xxii. 
I  o),  but  he  says,  "  I  have  found  the  book  of  the 
law  in   the  house  of  the  Lord  "  (xxii.   8).      The 


HILKI  AH  HIMSELF  SURPRISED  11 

[first]  definite  article  [implied]  in  the  Hebrew  phrase 
nnhnrr  nop  is  incomprehensible,  except  on  the 
assumption  that  Hilkiah  knew  the  book  by  hearsay. 
From  this  it  would  result  that,  according  to  this  very 
narrative  in  2  Kings  xxii.  and  foil.,  Deuteronomy 
must  have  come  into  existence  a  considerable 
time  before  623,  whereas  previously  we  could  only 
maintain  the  possibility  of  an  earlier  origin. 

There  is  certainly  a  way  of  escape  from  this 
conclusion.  It  might  be  suggested  that  in  the 
words  of  Hilkiah,  "  I  have  found  the  book  of  the 
law,"  a  deceit  was  intended,  that  Hilkiah  himself 
had  a  hand  in  the  authorship,  and  that  he  now 
sought  by  the  use  of  the  definite  article  to  produce 
the  impression  that  it  is  not  a  publication  for  the 
first  time,  but  the  re-discovery  of  a  book  which 
had  been  lost  and  was  missed  by  him.  Though 
we  refrain  here  from  a  judgment  of  this  pious 
fraud,  we  are  not  justified  in  rejecting  a  priori  the 
possibility  of  this  explanation.  But  on  closer 
examination  it  is  seen  to  be  untenable  ;  we  are 
this  time  in  the  happy  position  of  having  the 
majority  of  the  critics  on  our  side.  Thus,  for 
example,  Kautzsch  says  (as  above,  p.  167): 
"  All  things  considered  ...  we  may  come  to  the 
conclusion  that  Hilkiah  himself  was  surprised  at 
the  discovery.  The  position  of  the  priests  in 
Deuteronomy  is  by  no  means  of  a  kind  that 
would   explain   a  special   eagerness  on   their   part 


12    ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

for  the  creation  and  introduction  of  this  law. 
Certainly  the  concentrating  of  worship  assured  to 
the  priests  at  Jerusalem  an  important  increase  in 
influence  and  income,  even  though  the  gifts  to  the 
priests  were  in  themselves  still  very  moderate 
(Deut.  xviii.  3  and  foil.).  But  all  possible  ad- 
vantages are  weakened  by  the  express  command 
(Deut.  xviii.  6  and  foil.)  that  henceforth  a  right  to 
the  priestly  office  in  the  temple  and  to  the  priestly 
revenues  shall  be  conceded  even  to  those  who 
have  been  priests  in  the  country.  .  .  .  The  writer 
of  Deuteronomy  was  clearly  in  earnest  in  the 
command  of  xviii.  6,  and  this  is  in  itself  a  proof 
that  he  is  to  be  sought  for  not  among  the  priests, 
but  among  the  prophets.  That  the  book  was 
actually  placed  by  an  unknown  hand  in  the 
temple  in  the  certain  hope  that  sooner  or  later  it 
would  be  discovered,  and  its  aim  then  fulfilled,  is 
proved  first  of  all  by  the  fact  that  it  came  to  light 
on  the  occasion  of  repairs  in  the  temple.  And,  in 
the  second  place,  we  must  not  overlook  the  question 
why,  under  the  presumably  favourable  circum- 
stances for  a  reformation  of  worship,  they  should 
have  waited  until  the  eighteenth  year  of  Josiah  to 
publish  in  such  a  way  a  book  which  must  have 
already  for  a  long  time  been  a  pressing  need." 
We  may  therefore  agree  entirely  with  Kautzsch 
in  his  negative  conclusions,  and  regard  his  reasons 
as  convincing.      But  the  only  way  of  reconciling 


CONCLUSIONS  13 

the  definite  article  in  2  Kings  xxii.  8  with  the 
modern  date  of  Deuteronomy  has  thus  been  cut 
off.  And  true  as  it  is,  "  that  Hilkiah  himself  was 
surprised  at  the  discovery,"  it  is  equally  true  that 
the  definite  article  shows  plainly  that  the  book  of 
the  law  which  was  found  could  not  have  been  to 
Hilkiah  an  absolutely  new  thing.  Before  we  pass 
on  to  the  next  question,  for  which  we  have  already 
prepared  the  way  by  the  last  arguments,  let  us 
sum  up  once  more  the  points  of  importance  which 
have  resulted  from  our  consideration  of  the  narra- 
tive 2  Kings  xxii.  and  foil. 

(a)  In  2  Kings  xxii.  and  foil,  the  reference  is 
not  at  all,  or  at  least  in  the  first  instance,  to 
concentration  of  worship,  but  to  purification 
of  worship  and  abolition  of  idolatry.  The 
significance  of  this  extremely  important 
question  for  the  inquiry  as  to  the  origin  of 
Deut.  will  appear  under  §  5  (a), 
{b)  The  book  Deut.  may,  notwithstanding  the 
improprieties  in  regard  to  religion  and 
worship  described  in  2  Kings  xxii.  and 
foil.,  and  tolerated  by  Josiah  until  the 
year  623,  have  already  had  an  existence 
and  an  authority,  since  the  argument  from 
these  improprieties  could  and  must  be 
equally  held  as  valid  against  the  earlier 
existence  and  authority  of  the  Books  ol 
the  Covenant 


14    ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT  ? 

(c)  The  book  Deut.  must  have  been  known 
and  must  have  possessed  authoritative 
force  at  an  earlier  date ;  otherwise  the 
definite  article  in  2  Kings  xxii.  8  remains 
incomprehensible  and  inexplicable. 

Deut.  2.  We  were  able  to  agree  with  Kautzsch  when 

been  he   rejected    the   production    and    introduction    of 

SeitlTer^^    Deut.  by  the  priesthood.      On  the  other  hand,  we 

by  the        must    now  pronounce    impossible    his   own    posi- 

priests 

nor  the      tive  propositions,  according  to  which  the   author 

of  ^siah's  should  be  sought  for  in  the  circle  of  the  prophets, 
time.  Qj.  ^|.  ^^y  j.^|.g  outside  the  priesthood  ;  above  all, 

when  it  is  assumed  "that  the  book  was  written  in 
a  dark  time,  perhaps  under  Manasseh,  and  deposited 
in  hope  of  a  better  time,  but  in  the  meantime 
perhaps  the  author  had  died"  (as  above,  p.  168). 
My  attitude  of  opposition  will  certainly  appear  to 
be  above  suspicion,  when  1  am  able  to  appeal  in 
this  connexion  to  so  eminent  a  modern  critic  as 
Kuenen.  In  his  Historisch  kritische  Einleitung 
in  die  Bucher  des  Alten  Testaments  (authorised 
German  edition  by  Dr.  Th.  Weber,  vol.  i.  p.  209) 
Kuenen  says :  "  In  opposition  to  this  [the  view 
sketched  above]  there  is,  however,  the  important, 
and  in  my  view  unanswerable  consideration,  that 
according  to  this  assumption  of  the  course  of 
events  the  reformation  is  called  into  life  by 
persons  who  have  not  planned  it,  and  are  only 


KUENEN'S  THEORY  15 

blind  instruments  in  the  hand  of  the  unknown 
author.  Such  an  assumption  has  no  analogies. 
Almost  equally  improbable  is  the  part  which 
is  assigned  to  the  author  of  Deut.  in  con- 
nexion with  it  ;  he  states  his  wishes  in  writing 
and  urges  their  fulfilment  with  the  greatest 
earnestness — but  leaves  them  to  chance."  Then 
Kuenen  defends  the  above- rejected  aspect  of 
the  hypothesis,  according  to  which  Deut.  was 
produced  by  priests.  We  have  here  the  rare 
occurrence  that  the  foregoing  critics,  otherwise  so 
united,  differ  from  one  another  on  a  really  im- 
portant point,  and  clear  us  from  the  reproach  of 
dogmatic  prepossession.  In  fact,  the  weaknesses 
of  our  opponents'  position  on  this  point  are  so 
obvious,  that  from  this  alone  the  absolute  un- 
tenableness  of  the  almost  universally  accepted 
date  of  Deut.  is  evident.  It  must  have  been 
written  either  by  priests  or  by  other  persons,  by 
prophets  in  particular ;  both  have  been  shown  to 
be  impossible  under  the  circumstances  assumed 
by  the  critics. 

We  may  add  the  following  reasons.  It  is  an 
argument  against  the  production  by  priests  in  the 
seventh  century  that  the  larger  part  of  Deutero- 
nomy, even  in  most  of  the  legal  sections,  chapter 
xii.  and  foil.,  breathes  a'thoroughly  prophetic  spirit, 
and  lays  down  the  highest  religious  and  ethical 
principles.     This  indeed  is  not  in  itself  irreconcil- 


16    ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

able  with  the  priestly  spirit,  but  it  certainly  is  so 
with  the  priestly  spirit  of  that  time.  Not  only 
the  priests  of  the  northern  kingdom  were  profligate 
and  corrupt  (Hos.  iv.  4-10,  vi.  9,  etc.)  but  also 
those  of  the  kingdom  of  Judah  (comp.  Is.  xxviii. 
7  and  foil.,  14;  Mic.  iii.  11  ;  Zeph.  iii.  4;  Jer. 
ii.  26,  V.  31,  vi.  13,  xxiii.  11).  To  such  a 
priesthood  it  is  impossible  to  assign  the  author- 
ship of  Deut.  The  saying  of  our  Lord  is  true 
in  this  case  :  "  Neither  can  a  corrupt  tree  bring 
forth  good  fruit"  (Matt.  vii.  18). 

This  argument,  in  addition  to  what  is  adduced 
above,  tells  equally  against  the  production  by 
prophets  of  that  time.  The  passages  Mic.  iii.  1 1  ; 
Zeph.  iii.  4  ;  Jer.  ii.  26,  v.  31,  vi.  13,  xiv.  14 
and  foil.,  xxiii.  9  and  foil.,  xxviii.  1 5  and  foil., 
xxix.  8  and  foil.,  show  us  how  sad  was  the 
condition  of  the  prophets  of  that  period.  For 
the  most  varied  reasons  Deut.  cannot  be  attri- 
buted to  the  known  prophetic  writers ;  and 
certainly  not  to  the  other  prophets  named  by 
them,  for  they  were  profligate  persons,  to  whom 
the  prophetic  writers  were  in  the  sharpest 
opposition.  Where  are  we  to  look  for  the 
prophetic  circles  in  which  Deut.  could  have 
originated  ? 

Further,  is  it  credible  that  a  prophet  would 
have  given  so  many  casuistical  directions  as  meet 
us  in  Deut,  xix.  and  foil.,  and  this  too  at  a  time 


MODERN  DATE  IMPOSSIBLE     17 

when  the  conditions  were  so  bad  as  in  the  seventh 
century  ? 

But,  above  all,  it  would  be  quite  incompre- 
hensible why  the  author  did  not  appear  openly, 
as  was  otherwise  the  method  of  the  prophets,  but 
covered  himself  with  the  authority  of  Moses  ;  and 
the  more  incomprehensible  since,  according  to 
Deut.  xviii.  15,  18,  the  author  held  out  the  pros- 
pect, from  the  times  of  Moses  for  all  the  future, 
of  a  prophet  who  should  have  Mosaic  authority. 

In  short,  we  see  that  the  modern  date  of 
Deut.  is  wrecked  not  only  by  the  narrative  in 
2  Kings  xxii.  and  foil,  (see  above,  i,  c),  but  also 
by  the  question  of  author sJiip. 

3.  We  have  been  recalling  the  fact  that  a  prophet  The 
would   have   had    difficulty  in    concealing   himself  authority 
under  the  mantle  of  Moses.      But  apart  from  this  toDlut*hi^ 

altogether,  the  whole  hypothesis  must  break  down  consistent 

^  .  ^^  with  the 

on  the  Mosaic  dress ;   this   we  shall   show   in   the  later  date. 

present  section.  True,  it  is  pointed  out  with 
great  emphasis  that  it  would  naturally  occur  to 
Israelitish  lawgivers  —  nay,  that  they  really  could 
do  nothing  else  than  introduce  new  laws  under 
the  authority  of  Moses.  Thus  Cornill,  for  ex- 
ample (as  above,  p.  37  and  foil.),  says:  *' D.  was 
certainly  written  not  long  before  its  publication, 
for  it  was  calculated  from  the  beginning  in  view 
of  this :   it  appears  to  me  inadmissible  that  it  goes 

C 


18    ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT  ? 

back  to  the  time  of  Manasseh.  Then,  however, 
we  must  also  recognise  the  fact  that  we  have  here 
a  pseudepigraph,  and  that  this  fact  was  known  to 
those  chiefly  interested  in  it  —  an  instructive 
evidence  that  even  then  Moses  was  to  the  Jewish 
mind  the  lawgiver  and  founder  of  religion  Kar 
i^o')(r)v,  so  that  only  under  his  name  a  later  writer 
could  reckon  on  a  hearing  as  a  religious  lawgiver. 
And  this  must  be  the  excuse  for  those  men,  that 
they  saw  no  other  means  of  carrying  out  their 
work  planned  in  the  spirit  of  Moses  and  for  the 
honour  of  Jahwe."  This  sounds  all  very  pretty  ; 
only  it  is  a  pity  that  you  should  yourself  have 
already  sawn  off  the  branch  on  which  you  want 
to  sit ;  for  all  the  laws  which  are  attributed  to 
Moses  you  have  denied  to  him  ;  to  put  others,  of 
which  we  know  nothing,  in  their  place  is  the 
purest  arbitrariness.  Of  the  laws  which  are  before 
us  only  the  few  legal  directions  of  the  Books  of 
the  Covenant  (Ex.  xx.-xxiii.  and  xxxiv.)  would 
have  been  regarded  as  Mosaic  at  the  time  of  the 
discovery  of  Deut.  ;  yet  are  we  to  believe  that 
no  other  course  was  possible  than  to  attribute 
to  Moses  all  new  laws  ?  If  therefore  the  effort  to 
prove  the  Mosaic  disguise  to  be  necessary,  or  even 
only  probable,  does  not  succeed,  then  this  dress 
would  have  been  absolutely  excluded,  because  the 
new  legislation,  according  to  the  view  of  modern 
criticism,  was  in  the  sharpest  contradiction  to  that 


MOSAIC  DRESS  INEXPLICABLE  19 

which  was  hitherto  regarded  as  Mosaic  ;  for  it  is 
said  to  be  taught  in  Ex.  xx.  24  that  Moses 
expressly  permitted  the  offering  of  sacrifices 
everywhere,  whereas  in  Deut.  the  whole  emphasis 
is  laid  on  the  instruction  that  sacrifice  must  only 
be  offered  in  the  central  sanctuary  (comp.  especi- 
ally chap.  xii.).  I  should  really  like  to  know 
not  only  how  it  would  have  occurred  to  the 
authors,  but  how  it  was  possible  at  all  for  them 
to  put  their  legislation  in  the  mouth  of  Moses/ 
The  result  which  they  would  have  liked  to  attain 
by  means  of  the  Mosaic  dress,  they  would  have 
made  from  the  first,  by  means  of  it,  illusory  and 
impossible.  The  contradiction  between  the  in- 
structions recognised  as  Mosaic  must  have  shown 
only  too  clearly  that  the  newly-found  book  of  the 
law  was  not  Mosaic,  but  an  innovation.  Only  in 
passing  we  may  point  out  that  it  was  an  incred- 
ible optimism  on  the  part  of  the  authors,  if  they 
expected  from  the  reference  to  Moses  permanent 
results  on  the  part  of  a  thoroughly  lost  people 
who  cared  neither  for  the  living  prophets  nor  for 
their  God."^  The  result  proved  at  least  that  the 
reformation  of  worship  under  Josiah  was  only  able 

^  I  see  besides,  even  in  view  of  the  legislative  directions  attri- 
buted to  Moses  which  differ  in  cardinal  points  from  one  another, 
no  better  way  than  to  attribute  them  to  him,  at  least  so  far  as  their 
kernel  and  essential  substance  are  concerned. 

-  A  friend  who  has  read  this  translation  in  MS.  says  here  :  "  If 
they  hear  not  Moses  and  the  prophets,  yet  they  will  be  persuaded 
if  one  forge  a  Mosaic  treatise."" — Trans. 


20    ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT  ? 

to  fan  a  fire  of  straw.  Moreover,  it  is  hardly 
credible  that  this  important  book  of  laws  should 
have  been  assigned  to  the  end  of  Moses'  life  if, 
as  modern  criticism  alleges,  Deut  was  never- 
theless the  first  detailed  legislation  attributed  to 
Moses.  But  these  are  all  merely  subordinate 
elements  in  comparison  with  what  has  been  argued 
above,  with  which  one  other  point  may  be  classed 
as  of  equal  significance. 

We  must  not  regard  the  Mosaic  dress  as  if  it 
were  a  matter  of  comparative  indifference.  On 
its  consistent  accomplishment  the  success  of  the 
whole  would  depend,  as  will  be  seen  more 
particularly  from  §  4.  For  then  it  would  have 
been  above  all  things  necessary  to  give  the  book 
such  an  antiquarian  appearance  that  it  might 
reckon  on  credence  for  its  claim  to  be  Mosaic. 
But  if  we  reflect  how  difificult  it  is  even  to-day  to 
give  such  an  ancient  appearance  to  new  subjects, 
we  cannot  understand  how  the  authors  of  Deut. 
could  have  given  themselves  credit  for  such  very 
fabulous  skill  ;  I  think  that  on  this  ground  alone 
they  could  not  have  arrived  at  the  idea  of  attributing 
their  legislation,  not  merely  in  its  substance  but  in 
its  writing,  to  Moses  (comp.  Deut.  xxxi.  9). 

The  effect 

produced  4-  -^ut  let  US  really  suppose  that  the  authors 

deception  ^^^  "°^  permit  themselves  to  be  deterred  from  the 
is  incred-   Mosaic  dress  by  the  last-named  difficulty,  still  our 


EFFECT  OF  THE  DECEPTION     21 

astonishment  grows  when  we  hear  of  the  result. 
The  new  book  of  laws  must  have  been  disagree- 
able to  all,  as  we  shall  presently  see — certainly 
ground  enough  for  all  to  examine  very  closely 
into  its  genuineness.  But  the  dress  must  have 
been  such  a  masterly  success  in  form,  appearance, 
and  substance,  that  not  even  the  smallest  doubt 
could  arise  as  to  its  genuineness.  It  is  true  that 
the  circumstances  soon  became  just  as  bad  as 
they  had  been  before  ;  the  enthusiasm  and  the 
alarm  disappeared  as  quickly  as  they  had  come  ; 
men  sinned  exactly  as  before  ;  but  there  is  no- 
where the  slightest  hint  that  any  one  had  dared 
to  question  the  genuineness  of  this  book  of  the 
law  (comp.,  for  example,  Jer.  xxxiv.  8  and  foil., 
where  the  law  Deut.  xv.  1 2  and  foil,  had  been 
transgressed,  but  nothing  is  urged  against  the 
appeal  of  Jeremiah  to  Deut.  Jeremiah  stands 
on  one  point  on  the  same  ground  with  the 
transgressors ;  both  regard  Deut.  as  Mosaic). 
Let  us  examine  a  little  more  in  detail. 

The  whole  people — with  its  spiritual  leaders, 
the  priests  and  the  prophets  (2  Kings  xxiii.  2) — 
allows  itself  to  be  deceived,  and  does  not  observe 
that  laws  appear  here  as  Mosaic  which  are  in 
mutually  exclusive  opposition  to  what  has  been 
up  to  the  present  considered  as  such.  This  is 
the  more  remarkable,  as  it  would  not  be  entirely 
a   matter   of  indifference  to   the   people  whether 


22    ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT  ? 

they  should  suddenly  pay  dues  to  their  priests 
(comp.  Deut.  xviii.  i  and  foil.),  whether  they 
should  and  must  perform  their  worship  only  at 
the  central  sanctuary,  whether  they  had  to  fulfil 
the  other  numerous  burdensome  directions.  It 
is  the  more  remarkable,  as  every  decaying  age  is 
specially  inclined  to  be  critical.  How  thoroughly 
the  authorities,  how  thoroughly  the  whole  people 
know  in  Jer.  xxvi.  7  and  foil,  whether  or  not  the 
religious  conceptions  of  the  prophet  agree  with 
those  hitherto  accepted.  It  is  finally  the  more 
remarkable,  as  the  people  in  those  days  only  sub- 
mitted themselves  to  the  religious  yoke  with 
extreme  reluctance,  and  soon  transgressed  the 
law  again,  without  being  able  to  challenge  its 
genuineness. 

The  priests  of  the  high  places  allow  themselves 
to  be  deceived,  and  yet  they  are  thereby  thrown 
out  of  their  own  special  calling  ;  for  it  was  but  a 
slight  compensation,  when  they  were  permitted  to 
perform  service  at  the  sanctuary — with  which 
they  had  always  been  occupied — to  have  to  share 
the  revenues  also  with  a  multitude  of  other  priests. 

The  central  priesthood  allow  themselves  to  be 
deceived  ;  even  they  cannot  refuse  to  acknowledge 
the  book  of  the  law,  and  yet  the  instruction 
(Deut.  xviii.  6  and  foil.)  "  that  henceforth  those 
who  have  hitherto  been  country  priests  shall  have 
a   claim   to    the    priestly    service    in    the    temple 


THE  PROPHETS  DECEIVED    23 

and  to  the  priestly  dues,"  weakens  all  possible 
advantages,  and  must  therefore  be  disagreeable  to 
them  also  (comp.  Kautzsch,  p.  167). 

King  Josiah  allows  himself  to  be  deceived,  and 
has  to  submit  to  the  authority  of  the  book  of  the 
law.  When  he  sends  to  Huldah  the  prophetess, 
it  is  not  for  the  purpose  of  testing  the  genuine- 
ness of  the  book,  which  is  firmly  established  in 
his  sight  (comp.  2  Kings  xxii.  1 3),  but  to  ask 
whether  the  threaten ings  of  the  book  are  to  be 
fulfilled  (this  is  the  only  explanation  which  fits 
the  answer  of  the  prophetess,  2  Kings  xxii.  1 5 
and  fol!.).  Yet  how  disagreeable  to  the  king 
must  be  the  book  of  the  law  which  blamed  him 
and  his  ancestors  and  put  them  in  the  pillory 
(comp.  2  Kings  xxii.  13,  16  and  foil.)! 

The  prophets  allow  themselves  to  be  deceived 
— Huldc.h  and  even  Jeremiah,  and  the  latter  so 
much  so  that  he  goes  through  the  streets  ol 
Jerusalem  and  the  cities  of  Judah  and  defends 
Deuteronomy  as  the  legislation  of  Moses  (comp. 
Jer.  xi.) ;  and  yet  Jeremiah  is  the  very  prophet 
who  unhesitatingly  exposes  the  false  prophecy 
of  his  contemporaries  {e.g.  Jer.  xxix.  and  foil.),  and 
who  on  other  occasions  knows  so  exactly  what  is 
God's  Thora  and  what  is  not  (comp.  e.g.  Jer.  viii. 
8).^      Must  he,   therefore,   not   have   noticed   that 

^  Criticism  certainly  makes  Jeremiah  hesitate  in  his  relation  to 
Deut.  On  :his,  and  opposed  to  it,  the  striking  remarks  of  Breden- 
kamp  (as  above  quoted,  pp.  101-108)  may  be  specially  noted. 


24    ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

here  something  was  smuggled  in  under  a  false 
mark  ? 

We  can  only  say  that  the  result  would  be 
absolutely  incredible,  if  modern  criticism  was 
right  in  its  view  of  the  origin  of  Deut. ;  nay,  it 
is  so  incredible  that  the  latter,  for  this  reason 
alone,  cannot  be  right.  The  more  one  is 
otherwise  inclined  to  assume  sources  in  Deut. 
and  to  ascribe  it  therefore  to  various  authors 
(comp.  e.g.  Cornill,  Kautzsch,  Steuernagel),  the 
more  mysterious  would  it  be  that  nothing  of  the 
secret  work  came  to  light.  For  this  must  of 
necessity  be  assumed,  otherwise  the  result  would 
have  been  impossible  from  the  first. 

Moreover,  it  is  quite  an  obscure  conception 
under  which  criticism  sometimes  acts,  as  if 
Deut.  had  no  further  concern  with  its  outward 
dress,  and  as  if  it  even  allowed  this  sometimes  to 
appear  clearly.  We  saw  how  many  interests 
would  be  injured  by  Deut.,  and  how  the  un- 
paralleled result  was  from  the  first  impossible,  if 
the  disguise  were  not  carried  out  in  an  absolutely 
masterly  and  flawless  fashion.  If  it  were  really 
so,  as  Kautzsch  (p.  i68)  represents,  that  "the 
Deuteronomist  often  (as  in  xii.  2  in  the  perfect 
'served'  [their  gods])  lets  the  disguise  appear 
clearly,  that  he,  in  fact,  addresses  a  people  long 
settled,  living  in  the  midst  of  a  tolerably  highly- 
advanced  worship  " — this  would   be  the  strongest 


AGAINST  LATER  DATE       25 

possible  refutation  of  the  possibility  of  the  modern 
view  of  the  origin  of  Deut. 

5.  {a)  Up  to  this  point  we  have  seen  that  the  The 
modern  date  of  Deut.  not  only  has  not  the  narra-  of  Deut. 
tive  of  2  Kings  xxii.  and  foil,  in  its  favour,  ^*^®^^  ,.  , 
but  against  it  (§  i )  ;  we  have  proved  that  it  t^ie  later 
meets  with  invincible  difficulties  as  soon  as  we 
try  to  reduce  the  idea  to  actual  form  ;  we  find  no 
suitable  author  (§  2) ;  we  cannot  understand  how 
the  author  could  choose  the  Mosaic  disguise 
(§  3)  >  w^  must  find  it  incredible  that  he  could 
succeed  with  his  pretence  without  being  un- 
masked (§  4).  Now  we  enter  upon  Deut.  itself, 
and  inquire  whether,  in  its  contents  at  least,  it 
corresponds  to  the  modern  view  ;  but  here  it  is 
absolutely  clear  that  the  origin  of  the  book  cannot 
be  made  contemporaneous  with  the  reformation 
of  worship  under  Josiah.  According  to  modern 
criticism,  Deut.  was  produced  with  the  view 
of  effecting  what  it  did  effect.  Its  result  was 
its  aim  ;  it  was  aimed  from  the  first  at  the  refor- 
mation of  worship,  such  as  took  place  in  623,  and 
it  therefore  owed  its  origin  to  the  untenable  con- 
ditions of  religion  and  worship  at  that  time. 
Thus  Cornill  (as  above,  p.  37)  says  :  "  D.  was 
certainly  produced  not  long  before  its  publi- 
cation ;  for  it  was  from  the  beginning  calculated 
with  a  view  to  this."    In  it,  according  to  Kautzsch 


26    ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT  ? 

(as  above,  p.  i66),  a  great  problem  was  solved: 
"  The  restoration  of  a  comprehensive  body  of 
religious  and  civil  laws  in  behalf  of  a  transforma- 
tion of  the  prevailing  practice  in  the  state  and  in 
worship."  I  must  say  at  once  that  it  seems  to 
me  a  very  difficult  idea  that  in  the  seventh  century 
such  a  reform  in  the  civil  and  municipal  sphere 
should  have  been  combined  with  one  planned  in 
the  sphere  of  religion  and  worship.  If  such  abuses 
existed  as  are  described  in  2  Kings  xxii.  and 
foil.,  and  Deut.  had  for  its  aim  their  abolition, 
everything  else  must  of  necessity  have  been  put 
aside,  and  the  laws  which  relate  to  civil  reforma- 
tion could  scarcely  have  found  a  place  beside 
those  others.  But  if  the  whole  life  of  the  state 
and  the  citizen  was  equally  regulated  in  Deut., 
then  assuredly  the  observation  of  Delitzsch 
is  appropriate  (as  above.  No.  10)  that  Deut.  xii.- 
xxvi.  appears  intelligible  as  an  ideal  sketch-like 
project  for  a  people  which  is  just  about  to  become 
a  state,  but  is  on  the  other  hand  quite  inadequate 
for  a  state  centuries  old.  Deut.  therefore  will, 
in  the  first  place,  not  fit  in  with  the  reforma- 
tion of  worship,  on  account  of  its  inclusion  of  the 
civil  sphere  ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  the  sketch- 
like character  of  the  whole  points  to  a  much  more 
ancient  time. 

But   even    if  we   were   willing   to   admit   that 
Deut.   could    have    had   so   general  an    aim,  and 


UNITY  OF  WORSHIP  27 

could  have  carried  it  out,  if  it  had  originated 
in  the  seventh  century,  we  ought  at  least  to 
expect  that  all  the  instructions  would  bear  an 
obvious  relation  to  this  aim  ;  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
however,  we  only  find  a  whole  series  of  laws 
which  have  no  such  relation,  and  therefore  are,  to 
say  the  least,  superfluous,  and,  in  the  mind  of 
reformers,  unintelligible.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  very  instructions  which  should  and  did  pro- 
duce the  reformation  in  worship  arc  given  quite 
differently  from  what  we  should  expect.  Let  us 
begin  with  the  later  ones,  for  us  the  more  im- 
portant. We  may  connect  this  with  what  we 
proved  above  (§  i ,  a).  There  we  showed  that  the 
reference  in  2  Kings  xxii.  and  foil,  was  to  the 
abolition  of  idolatry  and  to  purification  of  worship, 
and  that  the  concentration  of  worship,  on  the 
other  hand,  was  an  element  absolutely  introduced 
for  the  first  time  by  criticism,  or  at  any  rate  first 
brought  into  the  foreground  by  it.  We  must 
therefore  conclude  that  a  book  of  laws  which  was 
written  with  a  view  to  the  production  of  the 
reformation  of  worship  described  in  2  Kings  xxii. 
and  foil,  would  have  had  to  lay  the  whole 
emphasis  on  the  prohibition  of  idolatry  and  the 
command  of  a  pure  worship,  whereas  the  em- 
phasising of  united  worship  must  have  been  a 
subject  of  quite  remote  interest,  since  Jerusalem 
was   full    of   idolatry.       That    our    contention    is 


28    ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

correct  is  clear  from  a  comparison  with  the 
prophets  who  had  to  strive  against  the  same 
religious  abuses  as  appear  in  2  Kings  xxii.  and 
foil.  They  declare  war  against  idolatry  (comp. 
e.g.  Jer.  iii.  6,  9,  i  3  ;  xiii.  27  ;  xvi.  16,  18  ;  xvii.  2 
ii.  20  and  foil.;  i.  10  and  foil.;  Ez.  vi.  1-6 
xviii.  6,  15  ;  xx.  28  and  foil.;  xliv.  10  and  foil, 
viii. ;  xvi.  ;  xxiii.,  and  elsewhere).  But  nowhere 
does  Jeremiah  expressly  demand  that  Jahwe 
shall  be  worshipped  in  Jerusalem  only.  Just  as 
little  does  Ezekiel  denounce  the  multiplicity  of 
altars  in  itself  (comp.  Bredenkamp,  as  above,  pp. 
1 68- 1 71).  It  must  have  been  the  same  with 
Deut.  if  it  had  really  originated  for  the  pur- 
pose of  abolishing  the  abuses  described.  As  a 
matter  of  fact  its  point  of  view  is  quite  different ; 
here  the  demand  for  unity  of  worship  does  actually 
stand  in  the  foreground  ;  it  is  not  necessary  to 
quote  particular  passages,  for  this  thought  runs 
through  the  whole  book  from  chap.  xii.  onwards  ; 
and  it  is  the  less  necessary,  as  on  this  point  we 
find  ourselves  in  entire  agreement  with  our 
opponents.  But  inasmuch  as  the  idea  of  con- 
centration of  worship  was  only  introduced  into 
2  Kings  xxii.  and  foil,  by  criticism,  or,  at  any 
rate,  put  in  the  foreground  by  it,  and  hence  the 
artificially-created  agreement  between  that  narra- 
tive and  the  book  of  the  law  has  really  no 
existence,   the   most    important   support    for    the 


TREATMENT  OF  IDOLATRY    29 

modern   view   falls   to   the   ground.      I   lay   great 
stress  upon  this  point  in  particular. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  prohibition  of  idolatry  Deut. 
does   also    certainly   appear  in  Deut.   along  with  chiefly  at 
the    command    for    unity   of  worship,    but    in    a  ^^^j^ship 
comparatively  subordinate  way,  whereas,  with  the  and  only 

^  "^  in  a  slight 

aim  which  is  ascribed  to  Deut.,  it  ought  to  degree  at 
have  been  in  the  very  centre.  And  now  let  us  of 
observe,  further,  the  method  in  which  this  idolatry  i^^ol^^^y. 
is  treated.  If  Deut.  had  really  in  view  the 
abolition  of  the  abuses  described  in  2  Kings 
xxii.  and  foil,  was  it  conceivable  that  they  should 
be  treated  as  something  entirely  problematical  and 
only  likely  to  appear  in  the  future  (see  Deut.  xiii.)? 
was  it  then  conceivable  that  the  community  should 
appear  quite  blameless  on  this  point,  so  blameless 
that  they  could  be  entrusted  with  executive  power 
against  the  transgressors  (xiii.  i  and  foil. ;  xvii.  2 
and  foil.)  ?  and,  finally,  was  it  conceivable  that, 
with  the  general  spread  of  idolatry  in  the  time  of 
Josiah,  the  death  punishment  should  be  appointed 
for  this  offence,  a  punishment  which  certainly 
was  only  practicable  so  long  as  idolatry  was  con- 
fined to  isolated  cases  ? 

In  short,  I  hold  it  indeed  as  possible  that 
the  newly-discovered  Deut.  could  effect  the  re- 
formation of  worship  described  in  2  Kings  xxii. 
and  foil.,  since  it  actually  forbade  everything 
which   was   then    abolished ;    but    I    regard  it  as 


30    ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

absolutely  impossible  that  a  book  of  laws  specially 
prepared  for  this  reformation  could  be  clothed  in 
this  form,  so  that  (i)  besides  the  reformation  of 
worship,  a  transformation  of  the  life  of  the  citizen 
and  the  state  was  intended ;  so  that  (2)  the 
principal  subject  in  the  book  of  laws  (unity  of 
worship)  had  little  or  nothing  to  do  with  that 
reformation  ;  and  so  that  (3)  conversely,  that 
which  was  the  most  important  element  in  the 
reformation  (abolition  of  idolatry)  appeared  only 
as  a  secondary  feature  in  the  book  of  laws. 

Finally,  let  us  note  also  the  difference  between 
Deut.  xviii.  6  and  foil,  and  2  Kings  xxiii.  9. 
Deut.  xviii.  6  and  foil,  runs  :  "  And  if  a  Levite 
come  from  any  of  thy  gates  out  of  all  Israel,  where 
he  sojourned,  and  come  with  all  the  desire  of  his 
mind  unto  the  place  which  the  Lord  shall  choose  ; 
then  he  shall  minister  in  the  name  of  the  Lord 
his  God,  as  all  his  brethren  the  Levites  do,  which 
stand  there  before  the  Lord.  They  shall  have 
like  portions  to  eat,"  etc.  According  to  the 
modern  view  as  to  the  origin  of  Deuteronomy,  we 
must  understand  by  the  word  "  Levites  "  priests  of 
high  places,  who,  by  the  concentration  of  worship, 
would  have  lost  their  occupation  and  their 
means  of  support.  Deut.,  which  shows  itself 
human  throughout,  would  then  grant  as  com- 
pensation, as  it  were,  to  these  "  hitherto  country 
priests  a  right  to  the  priestly  service  in  the  temple 


TREATMENT  OF  LEVITES      31 

and  to  the  priestly  dues "  (Kautzsch,  as  above, 
p.  167).  Yet  this  alone  is  sufficient  to  show  the 
impossibility  of  the  modern  hypothesis.  Deutero- 
nomy may  be  as  human  as  possible  ;  but  that  it 
understands  no  trifling  in  religious  matters  we  see 
from  Deut.  xiii.  i  and  foil.,  where  the  seducers  to 
idolatry  and  those  who  are  seduced  are  to  be  put 
to  death.  How  can  it  then  concede  that  favour 
to  the  idolatrous  priests — and  those  who  were 
removed  in  2  Kings  xxii.  and  foil,  were  such — 
and  in  general  provide  expressly  for  the  Levites 
(cf.  Deut.  xviii.  6  and  foil. ;  xii.  12,  19  ;  xiv.  27  ; 
xvi.  II,  14  ;  xxvi.  11,  12  and  foil.)?  It  is  there- 
fore inconceivable  that  those  Levites  mentioned  in 
xviii.  6  were  deposed  priests  of  the  high  places  ; 
but  then  Deut.  must  necessarily  belong  to  a 
different  period. 

Besides,  Deut.  xviii.  6,  7  would  be  in  strict  con- 
tradiction to  2  Kings  XX "■  •  "Nevertheless  the 
priests  of  the  high  places  came  noi  up  to  the  altar 
of  the  Lord  in  Jerusalem,  but  they  did  eat  of  the 
unleavened  bread  among  their  brethren."  Here 
that  would  be  expressly  forbidden  to  them,  which 
was  conceded  to  them  in  Deut.  xviii.  6,  7.  From 
this  also  it  follows  that  Deut.  cannot  have  been 
written  in  order  to  produce  that  reformation; 
it  would  be  quite  incomprehensible  how  Deut. 
xviii.  6,  7  could  have  been  evaded,  unless  the 
priests  of  the  high  places  had  offered  the  most 


32    ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT  ? 

determined  and  successful  resistance,  appealing  to 

Deut.  xviii.   6,  7  (comp.  Bredenkamp,  as  above, 

p.  135).      Deut.  xviii.  6  and  foil,  does  not  refer  at 

all  to  the  priests  of  the  high  places. 

If  we  thus   see  that  the  commands  of  Deut. 

will    not    fit    in    at    all    with    the    aim    assigned 

to    it,    on    the    other   side   we  note  that  just  in 

connexion    with    the     supposed     aim     of    Deut. 

an    extensive    legislation   on    worship    and   ritual 

might  be  expected  ;  it  is  wanting,  and,  according 

to  modern  criticism,  appears   instead   in   a   place 

where  they  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  question 

of  public   worship,   i.e.   in   exile.       Certainly  this 

omission  here  again  contradicts  the  modern  date 

of  Deut. 

Individual        {b)  After  the  more  essential  discussions  we  re- 

tions  of     member  also  a  number  of  individual  injunctions 

^®^^  ^.  .  which  have   no   relation  to    the   alleged    plan   of 
contradict  ^  ° 

later  date,  reform,  and,  therefore,  remain  inexplicable  in  view 
of  the  practical  tendency  of  Deut.  From  the 
large  number  we  select  only  a  few  of  special 
importance,  because  the  fundamental  explanations 
already  given  seem  to  us  quite  convincing,  and 
we  prefer  not  to  delay  unnecessarily  long  over 
such  details.  We  may  refer  any  one  who  does 
not  find  enough  here  I0  Havernick  (as  above, 
p.  460  and  foil.),  Delitzsch  (as  above.  No.  11), 
Kleinert  (as  above,  Third  Essay),  and  Schulz  (as 
above,    p.    72    and    foil.),    even    though    all    the 


TREATMENT  OF  CANAANITES  33 

passages  adduced  by  them  are  not  conclusive. 
Whoever  has  been  convinced  by  the  above  ex- 
aminations even  to  a  moderate  extent,  will  not 
deny  the  significance  and  importance  of  such 
single  passages  for  our  inquiries. 

On  the  assumption  that  Deut.  was  aiming  Exter- 
at  a  transformation  of  existing  circumstances,  of  the 
what  is  the  meaning  of  the  oft-recurring  warning  j^^g^^°" 
to  exterminate  the  Canaanites,  thus  well  marked 
at  a  time  when  as  a  people  they  had  long 
ceased  to  exist  and  no  longer  possessed  fortified 
towns,  but  at  the  most  dwelt  in  the  land  as 
isolated  settlers  ?  True,  it  is  answered  that  this 
occurs  because  at  that  very  time  an  idolatry 
identical  with,  or  resembling,  the  Canaanitish 
worship  was  being  practised ;  this  commands 
attention  and  is  quite  evident  for  the  moment. 
But  if  we  look  a  little  closer,  it  is  at  once  clear 
that  this  explanation  is  utterly  insufficient.  If  it 
were  correct,  we  should  expect  that  a  warning 
would  only  be  given  against  the  Canaanitish 
worship  as  is  done  in  Deut.  xii.  I  and  foil.  On 
the  contrary,  the  warning,  given  with  repeated 
emphasis  and  increasing  vigour,  that  the  Canaan- 
itish people  themselves  are  to  be  extirpated, 
remains  unexplained,  and  appears,  to  say  the  least, 
superfluous,  because  in  the  seventh  century  what 
is  here  enjoined  had  been  long  since  fulfilled. 
What  is,  in  particular,  the  meaning  of  the  words 

D 


34    ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

intended  to  reassure  them  in  Deut.  vii.    1 8   and 

foil.,  which  are  only  intelligible  if  the  readers  or 

hearers    of   Deut.    were    afraid  ?       What    is    the 

meaning,  in  the  seventh  century,  of  the  command 

to  exterminate  the  Canaanites  gradually,  with  the 

noteworthy   reason    that    the   wild    beasts   would 

otherwise  become  too  numerous  (comp.  vii.  22)? 

What,    finally,    is    the    meaning,  in    the    seventh 

century,  of  the  law  (Deut.  xx.  1 6  and  foil.)  which 

commands  that  on  the  conquest  of  the  Canaanitish 

cities  the  interdict  is  to  be  scrupulously  executed, 

and  not  a  soul  to  be  left  alive,  if  there  had  been 

for  a  long  time   no  Canaanitish   cities   left  ?      If, 

then,  it  remains  that  this  objection,  already  long 

brought    forward    against    the    modern    date    of 

Deut,  has  not  hitherto  been  weakened,  it   must 

be   that    the   authors    are    credited   with    quite  a 

fabulous  refinement  in  their  work.      The  same  may 

be  said  in  the  following  instances. 

Laws  The  passage  last  adduced  is  taken  from  the 

going        so-called  laws  of  warfare  (see  especially  xx.  1-15, 

forth         xxiv.  5),  in  connection  with  which  quite  a  series  of 
to  -war.  "^  ^'  ^ 

thoughts  arise,  which  are  most  decidedly  opposed 

to  the  modern  date.  It  is  in  the  first  place 
scarcely  conceivable  that  in  the  beginning  of  the 
seventh  century  instructions  should  have  been 
given  as  to  how  they  were  to  act  in  besieging 
cities  very  far  away  from  them,  and  this  too  out- 
side Canaan  (comp.  xx.  10-15  with  ver.  16);  at  that 


LAWS  ABOUT  WAR  35 

time  distant  wars  were  the  last  thing  they  thought 
of.  According  as  xx.  19  and  foil,  is  understood 
to  refer  to  Canaanitish  or  to  foreign  cities,  these 
verses  fall  under  the  first  or  the  second  of  the 
points  just  treated. 

But  if  we  actually  assume  in  the  seventh 
century  such  a  lust  for  conquest,  if  we  further 
assume  that  it  was  supported  by  the  prophetically 
guided  author  of  Deuteronomy,  how  are  we  to 
explain  instructions  such  as  xx.  5,  6,  7,  8,  and 
xxiv.  5,  that  any  one  who  has  built  a  new  house, 
planted  a  vineyard,  who  has  been  betrothed  or 
newly  married,  nay,  even  every  one  who  is  faint- 
hearted, is  not  required  to  go  forth  to  war  ?  This 
is  intelligible  in  the  case  of  a  people  who  still 
expect  that  after  their  immigration  Jahwe  himself 
will  defend  Israel  and  break  all  their  enemies  in 
pieces  (comp.  Ex.  xxiii.  22  and  foil,  27-31),  but 
not  any  longer  at  a  time  when  they  must  often 
enough  have  seen  that  the  people  could  be 
abandoned  to  their  enemies  and  become  tributary 
to  them,  nay,  even  annihilated  by  them,  as  had 
happened  a  short  time  before  to  the  northern 
kingdom  through  Asshur.  How,  finally,  is  it 
conceivable  in  the  seventh  century  that  the  law 
(Deut.  XX.  1-9)  which  treats  of  going  forth  to 
war  could  leave  the  king  entirely  unobserved  and 
disregarded,  and  mentioned  in  his  stead  only 
priests   and   officers  ?      It    need   not    be  objected 


36    ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

that    in  this  case  the   Mosaic  dress   is   put    on ; 

for   that  Deut.   elsewhere  thinks   of  the   king  is 

clearly  proved  by  xxviii.   36    and   xvii.    14   and 

foil.      If,  therefore,  there  had  been  already  a  king 

at   the   time  of   the   origin   of  Deut,  we  should 

expect  that  the  law  which  must  concern  him  in 

the  very  first  degree  would  have  introduced  him 

with  some  such  formula  as  "  the  king  who  shall  be 

in  those  days." 

Reference        Further,  we   may  refer  to  Deut.  xxv.    17-19, 

Amaiek-    where  Israel  is  reminded  of  what  the  Amalekites 

Deut'xxv^  ^^^  *^  them  in  the  journey  through  the  wilderness 

earlier       (comp.  Ex.  xvii.   8-1  O,  and  the  duty  of  utterly 

than  time  ,,  ,  r 

of  Saul,  blotting  them  out  from  the  earth  is  forcibly  incul- 
cated. This  instruction  is  quite  inconceivable  in 
the  seventh  century,  because  there  were  then  no 
longer  any  Amalekites.  We  would  have  to 
go  back  with  Deut.  at  least  to  the  time  of 
Hezekiah  (727-699),  under  whose  reign,  according 
to  I  Chron.  iv.  41-43,  the  last  survivors  of  the 
Amalekites  were  annihilated  by  five  hundred 
Simeonites.  But  even  that  would  not  suffice  ;  for 
so  miserable  a  remnant,  which  could  be  destroyed 
by  five  hundred  men  surrounding  them,  would  not 
explain  the  solemn  inculcation  of  the  command  in 
Deut.  xxv.  17  and  foil.,  which  clearly  assumes  a 
people  still  in  its  vigour.  But  the  Amalekites 
had  already  ceased  to  exist  as  a  people  since  the 
time  of  David  (see  i  Sam.  xxx.  i,  17);  nay,  the 


THE  PROPHETIC  LAW        37 

vengeance  required  in  Deut.  for  that  which 
Amalek  had  once  done  to  Israel  had  been  executed 
under  Saul,  who  destroyed  all  the  men  of  war 
(comp.  I  Sam.  xv.  i-8,  especially  ver.  2,  "I  remem- 
ber that  which  Amalek  did  to  Israel,  how  he  laid 
wait  for  him  in  the  way,  when  he  came  up  from 
Egypt,"  with  Deut.  xxv.  17).  Deut.  xxv.  17-19 
must,  therefore,  be  placed  farther  back  even  than 
the  time  of  Saul. 

A     further    consideration    which     makes    the  Deutxriii. 
modern    date    impossible    is     the   prophetic    law  incon- 
xviii.  9  and  foil.      Deut.  xxxiv.  is  generally  held  ^^^^*^^ 
not    to    be    by    Moses,    even    by    Hengstenberg,  date. 
Havernick    and    Kohler,    because    the    death    of 
Moses  is  here  narrated.     In  ver.  10  of  that  chapter 
it  is  said  :  "  There  arose  not  a  prophet  since  in 
Israel  like  unto  Moses."      If  then  Moses  appeared 
to   later  times  in  such  unattainable   height,  how 
could  he  be  compared  by  the  authors  of  Deut. 
to   other    prophets   (comp.    xviii.    15,    18,    "The 
Lord  thy  God  will  raise  up  unto  thee  a  prophet 
from   the    midst    of   thee,    of  thy    brethren,   like 
unto    me ;  unto  him   shall    ye    hearken.    ...    I 
will  raise  them  up  a  prophet  from  among  their 
brethren   like  unto  thee  ")  ?      It  was  precisely  on 
comparing  these  words  with  Deut.  xxxiv.  10  that 
they  appeared  to  me  as  only  modest  utterances  of 
Moses,  but  not  intelligible  in  the  mouths  of  others. 

Absolutely  inadequate  and  inappropriate  for  the 


38    ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

seventh  century  would  be  the  sign  given  in  Deut. 
xviii.  22,  by  which  the  false  prophet  is  to  be 
recognised :  "  When  a  prophet  speaketh  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord,  if  the  thing  follow  not,  nor 
come  to  pass,  that  is  the  thing  which  the  Lord  hath 
not  spoken :  the  prophet  hath  spoken  it  pre- 
sumptuously, thou  shalt  not  be  afraid  of  him." 
How  is  that  possible  at  a  time  when  prophecies 
of  really  genuine  prophets  had  not  been  fulfilled, 
because  Jahwe  repented  of  his  word  and  penitence 
took  place  ;  compare,  for  example,  the  threatening, 
Micah  iii.  12,  with  Jer.  xxvi.  18  and  foil.  How, 
above  all,  in  the  seventh  century,  could  the  false 
prophets  be  virtually  described  as  those  who 
prophesied  evil  (Deut.  xviii.  22,  "thou  shalt  not 
be  afraid  of  him  "),  whereas  the  false  prophets  of 
that  time  prophesied  good  instead  of  evil  (comp. 
I  Kings  xxii.  22  and  foil. ;  Is.  ix.  15  ;  Jer.  iv.  9, 
xiv.  14  and  foil.,  xxiii.  16  and  foil.,  xxix.  8  and 
foil. ;  Ez.  xiii.  10,  16)? 
Threats  Finally,  we  recall  the  way  in  which  the  exile  is 

in  Deut.  threatened  (chap,  xxviii.  and  foil.).  In  the  seventh 
"^tT^^th  ^^°^"^y  ^^^  threatening  would  hardly  have  been 
later  date,  pronounced  in  such  general  terms,  inasmuch  as 
Asshur,  and  since  Isaiah's  time  Babel  also,  had 
come  within  the  horizon  of  the  prophets.  But  it 
would  have  been  absolutely  incomprehensible  to 
threaten  to  bring  the  people  back  again  into  Egypt 
(xxviii.  68).      Similarly  the  reference  in  the  kingly 


THE  LAW  ABOUT  THE  KING  39 

law  (Deut.  xvii.  i6)  is  unintelligible  at  any  other 
time  than  that  of  Moses  ;  for  no  king  ever  showed 
any  desire  to  take  the  whole  people  back  to  Egypt 
in  order  to  obtain  many  horses.  The  same  is 
true  of  ver.  15:"  one  from  thy  brethren  shalt  thou 
set  king  over  thee  ;  thou  mayst  not  put  a  foreigner 
over  thee,  which  is  not  thy  brother."  There  was 
never  any  idea  in  Judah  of  making  a  foreigner 
king.  What  then  could  be  the  meaning  of 
such  a  law  ?  If,  moreover,  Deut.  dated  from  the 
time  of  Josiah,  if  a  king  already  existed  at  all,  the 
few  directions  would  be  quite  inadequate  to  lay 
down  his  duties.  For  other  points  compare 
Hengstenberg  ("  Authentic  des  Pentateuch,"  the 
third  vol.  of  his  Beitrdge,  pp.  246-261).  Further, 
what  object  could  there  be  in  the  seventh  century 
in  the  instruction  (xxvii.  1-8)  to  write  the  law 
upon  stones  and  to  set  them  up  on  Mount  Ebal  ? 

We  could  continue  in  this  way  for  a  consider- 
able time,  but  I  think  the  instances  I  have  cited 
are  quite  sufficient ;  some  of  them  would  only  be 
comprehensible  if  the  Mosaic  covering  was  carried 
out  in  the  most  skilful  manner  ;  but  the/est  remain 
quite  unintelligible  even  then,  and  therefore  of 
necessity  go  much  farther  back. 

Thus,  then,  this  section  has  shown  us  how  the 
modern  view  of  the  origin  of  Deut.  breaks  down  in 
the  contents  also  ;  neither  the  fundamental  ideas 
nor  a  series  of  particular  commands  agree  with  the 


40    ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

narrative  in  2  Kings  xxii.  and  foil.,  and  the  aim 
attributed  to  Deut.,orwith  the  seventh  century  at  all. 

Distinct  6.  We  propose  to   prove  in  this  section  that 

Deut.  in  before  623  distinct  traces  of  Deut,  or  at  any  rate 

fon?^^^  of   the  fundamental    ideas  represented  in  it,  are 

before  already  in    existence  which    make   it   impossible, 

623  B.C.  .  t      ,  ,  t-  f 

or  improbable,  to  place  its  origin  only  a  short 
time  before  its  discovery.  We  pass  by,  in  this 
connexion,  the  passages  in  the  books  of  Kings  in 
v/hich  the  reign  of  particular  kings  is  judged 
according  to  the  principles  laid  down  in  Deutero- 
nomy ;  for  if  the  supposed  constructor  of 
Deuteronomy  assumed  that  Deuteronomy  was 
already  known  to  the  kings,  he  might  judge  them 
according  to  that  standard,  even  though  he  should 
have  been  quite  in  error  in  his  assumption.  It  is 
different  with  those  passages  in  which  particular 
actions  are  undertaken  on  the  ground  of  the 
commands  in  Deuteronomy.  To  these  we  may 
appeal ;  for  otherwise  the  editor  of  Deuteronomy 
would  not  judge  on  Deuteronomic  principles  only, 
but  would  simply  invent.  That  this  makes  a 
great  difference  is  clear ;  unfortunately  it  has  not 
often  been  observed  on  the  side  of  criticism,  and 
the  critics  have  not  shrunk  from  crediting  the 
author  of  Deuteronomy  with  such  construction 
and  invention  of  history.  We  refrain  from  enter- 
ing on  the  objectionableness  of  such  a  mode  of 


HEZEKIAH  AND  MOSAIC  LAW  41 

conduct,  and  only  remind  our  readers  that  we 
then  lose  at  once  the  slightest  possibility  of 
knowing  anything  at  all  of  the  history  of  Israel. 
Here  also  they  cut  away  the  branch  on  which 
they  sit ;  for  the  Deuteronomist  could  have  in- 
vented the  narrative  in  2  Kings  xxii.  and  foil, 
which  is  attributed  to  him  just  as  well  as  other 
incidents  which  suited  his  view  of  history.  For 
this  reason  Eichthal  {^Melanges  de  critique  biblique^ 
Paris,  1886)  and  Vernes  {Une  nouvelle  hypothese 
sur  la  composition  et  Vorigine  deuterono^ne.  Examen 
des  vues  de  M.  G.  Eichthal,  Paris,  1887),  who 
regard  Deut.,  in  spite  of  the  narrative  in  2  Kings 
xxii.  and  foil.,  as  post-exilic,  can  rightly  claim 
to  be  consistent  After  this  preliminary  remark  let 
us  pass  on  to  the  passages  themselves. 

2  Kings  xviii.  4-6  runs  thus  :  "  He  (Hezekiah) 
removed  the  high  places,  and  brake  the  images 
and  cut  down  the  groves,  and  brake  in  pieces  the 
brazen  serpent  that  Moses  had  made ;  for  unto 
those  days  the  children  of  Israel  did  burn  incense 
to  it ;  and  he  called  it  Nehushtan.  He  trusted 
in  the  Lord  God  of  Israel  ;  so  that  after  him  was 
none  like  him  among  all  the  kings  of  Judah,  nor 
any  that  were  before  him.  For  he  clave  to  the 
Lord  and  departed  not  from  following  him,  and 
kept  his  commandments,  which  the  Lord  com- 
manded Moses."  And  in  ver.  22,  Rabshakeh,  the 
general  of  the  Assyrian  king  Sennacherib,  says  to 


42    ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

the  representatives  of  Hezekiah  :  "  But  if  ye  say 
unto  me,  We  trust  in  the  Lord  our  God  ;  is  it  not 
he  whose  high  places  and  whose  altars  Hezekiah 
hath  taken  away,  and  hath  said  to  Judah  and 
Jerusalem,  Ye  shall  worship  before  this  altar  in 
Jerusalem  ?  "  True,  this  very  verse  is  appealed  to 
in  order  to  prove  that  the  reformation  of  worship 
under  Hezekiah  was  an  arbitrary  one,  and  not 
produced  by  Divine  command  (comp.  Kuenen, 
as  above,  i.  p.  205,  §  2  ;  and  Steuernagel,  Die 
Entstehung  des  deuteronomischen  Gesetzes,  p.  81 
and  foil.).  But  how  can  they  then  insist  that 
Rabshakeh,  to  whom  the  destruction  of  the  high 
places  and  the  altars  of  Jahwe  must  have  appeared 
repugnant  in  the  sight  of  God,  since  as  a  heathen 
he  could  have  no  appreciation  of  the  demand  for 
unity  of  worship,  must  have  expressly  added  that 
Hezekiah  had  acted  according  to  the  Divine 
command  ?  But  what  was  not  only  unnecessary 
but  impossible  in  the  mouth  of  Rabshakeh  is 
clearly  enough  stated  in  vers.  4-6.  This  is  ad- 
mitted even  by  Steuernagel. 

But  when  the  historicity  of  that  reformation  of 
worship  at  all  is  called  in  question  (as  by  Smend, 
Stade,  and  Wellhausen),  they  cannot  argue  from 
the  fact  that  it  was  not  permanent ;  it  was  not  a 
whit  better  with  the  reformation  of  Josiah  (comp. 
Jer.  iii.  10;  Ez.  viii.),  and  Wellhausen  himself 
says  (as  above,  p.  28),  "  If  the  people  of  Judah 


HEZEKIAH  AND  JOSIAH       43 

had  remained  quietly  in  their  own  land,  the 
reformation  of  Josiah  would  hardlyjhave  penetrated 
among  the  people  because  the  threads  which 
bound  the  present  to  the  past  were  too  strong  "  ; 
the  best  and  most  striking  proof,  besides,  that 
even  in  the  view  of  Wellhausen  himself  Deut., 
even  though  it  be  supposed  to  have  originated  in 
the  seventh  century,  does  not  agree  at  all,  or 
only  very  superficially,  with  the  history  !  If  it  is 
pointed  out  that  the  narrative  in  2  Kings  xxii. 
and  foil,  goes  so  much  more  into  detail,  and  that 
the  reformation  of  Josiah  made  so  much  more 
noise  (Wellhausen),  this  proves  nothing,  but  is 
quite  in  agreement  with  the  fact  that  in  2  Kings 
xviii.  the  question  was  indeed  the  purification  of 
worship,  but  for  the  rest,  the  abolition  of  the 
worship  of  Jahwe  in  the  high  places ;  whereas  in 
2  Kings  xxii.  and  foil,  it  was  the  abolition  of 
actual  idolatry  (see  above) ;  compare  2  Kings 
xviii.  4  with  ver.  22,  and  the  difference  between 
the  two  reformations  also  according  to  the  reports 
of  the  chronicler,  2  Chron.  xxx.  14,  xxxi.  i  in 
contrast  with  2  Chron.  xxxiv.  24  and  foil.  From 
these  it  is  further  evident  that  the  reformation 
under  Josiah  was  naturally  a  quite  specially 
notable  event  on  account  of  the  sudden  discovery 
of  the  book  of  the  law.  Moreover,  no  one  knows 
how  the  Deuteronomist  could  have  come  to  ascribe 
a  reformation  to   Hezekiah  ;  perhaps  because  he 


44    ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

was  pious  ?  But  then  he  surely  must  have  narrated 
other  reformations  for  us  ! 

If  then  we  have  no  reason  to  dispute  the 
historicity  of  that  event,  it  is  on  the  other  hand 
pure  caprice  to  regard  it — in  contrast  with  the 
narrative  in  2  Kings  xviii. — as  the  presupposition 
for  the  Deuteronomic  legislation  instead  of  as  the 
consequence  of  it  (in  opposition  to  Steuernagel 
and  Kuenen)  ;  this  can  certainly  not  be  proved, 
and  it  seems  to  me  on  historical  grounds  quite 
preposterous  to  take  out  of  a  narrative  what  suits 
ourselves,  and  on  the  other  hand  to  reject  other 
points  on  which  the  former  seems  to  depend. 
The  same  manoeuvre  could  be  carried  out,  besides, 
in  the  case  of  2  Kings  xxii.  and  foil.  Here  the 
alternative  holds  good :  either  the  narrative  is 
historical,  and  we  have  no  reason  to  doubt  it,  and 
then  we  have  a  clear  trace  of  Deuteronomy ;  or  it 
was  invented  by  the  Deuteronomist,  and  then  we 
may  fairly  question  also  the  historicity  of  2  Kings 
xxii.  and  foil.,  in  which  case  the  secure  starting- 
point  of  modern  criticism  would  disappear  ! 

A  second  passage,  2  Kings  xiv.  6,  runs  : 
"  But  the  children  of  the  murderers  he  (Amaziah, 
king  of  Judah,  797-779)  slew  not ;  according  to 
that  which  is  written  in  the  law  of  Moses,  where- 
in the  Lord  commanded,  saying.  The  fathers  shall 
not  be  put  to  death  for  the  children,  nor  the 
children    be   put   to   death    for   the   fathers ;     but 


DEUT.  KNOWN  TO  AMOS      45 

every  man  shall  be  put  to  death  for  his  own 
sin."  Here  also  it  is  narrated  that  the  king  was 
influenced  by  Deut.  (see  xxiv.  i6)  not  to  execute 
whole  families  of  the  murderers  of  his  father, 
but  to  limit  himself  to  the  actual  criminals. 

Similarly  Jos.  viii.  30  and  foil,  may  be  com- 
pared, where  the  command  given  in  Deut.  xxvii. 
I  and  foil.,  to  write  the  Deuteronomic  book  of 
the  law  upon  stones  and  to  set  them  up  on  Mount 
Ebal,  is  carried  out. 

Amos  and  Hosea,  too,  must  have  known 
Deut. ;  thus  the  expression  (Hos.  iv.  4)  "  thy 
people  are  as  they  that  strive  with  the  priest" 
is  scarcely  intelligible  without  acquaintance  with 
Deut.  xvii.  12.  Similarly  the  reproach  against 
the  priests  in  Hos.  iv.  14  who  sacrifice  with 
harlots  presupposes  the  instruction  of  Deut. 
xxiii.  18  ;  and  the  expression  in  Hos.  v.  10,  "the 
princes  of  Judah  were  like  them  that  remove  the 
bound,"  the  law  of  Deut.  xix.  14.^  Amos  iv.  4 
can  only  be  properly  understood  if  it  contains  an 
amplification  of  the  command  in  Deut.  xiv.  28. 
We  will  content  ourselves  with  these  instances  ; 
it  is  clear  from  them  not  only  that  Deut. 
was  already  in  existence  at  the  time  of  Hosea 
and  Amo^    but  that    it   had    authoritative    force 

^  It  may  be  re.  ked  by  the  way  that  it  is  absolutely  incom- 
prehensible how  this  passage  can  be  adduced  against  Mosaic 
authorship  ;  if  Moses  wanted  to  give  this  instruction  as  permanently 
binding  on  the  people,  he  could  not  have  formulated  it  better. 


46    ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

even  before  the  division  of  the  kingdom ;  for 
otherwise,  in  view  of  the  opposition  to  Judah,  it 
would  never  have  been  accepted  in  the  northern 
kingdom  and  would  have  been  quite  unknown 
there. 

But  we  must  go  farther  back.  It  is  main- 
tained, indeed,  that  by  the  place  "which  the 
Lord  shall  choose  to  cause  his  name  to  dwell 
there"  (see  Deut.  xii.  ii,  14,  etc.)  Jerusalem  is 
meant,  and  that  it  was  just  before  the  building 
of  the  temple  that  it  made  its  demand  for  unity 
of  worship.  So  far  as  may  be  meant  thereby 
that  Deut.  drops  its  Mosaic  dress,  we  have 
already  spoken  on  that  subject  (see  p.  24).  In 
support  of  this,  appeal  cannot  be  made  to  the  clause 
"  when  he  giveth  you  rest  from  all  your  enemies 
round  about"  (Deut.  xii.  10),  which  necessarily 
presupposes  the  time  of  Solomon.  Certainly 
Solomon  wants  to  build  a  house  for  God,  because 
he  had  given  him  rest  on  every  side  (see  i  Kings 
V.  4  and  foil.).  But  Israel  was  also  to  wreak 
vengeance  on  Amalek  and  destroy  it  only  when 
the  Lord  had  given  them  rest  from  all  their  enemies 
round  about  (Deut.  xxv.  17-19),  and  this  com- 
mand was  already  executed  by  Saul,  and  there- 
fore long  before  the  building  of  the  temple  (see  i 
Sam.  XV.  1-8,  esp.  ver.  2)!  We  have,  besides, 
Jeremiah  on  our  side,  for  he  plainly  says  (chap. 
vii.  12)  that  Jahwe  set  his  name  in  Shiloh  before 


CENTRAL  SANCTUARY        47 

the  choice  of  Jerusalem.  According  to  him, 
therefore,  the  central  sanctuary  of  Deut.  already- 
existed  there,  and  we  have  every  reason  to  put 
more  confidence  in  him,  since  he  was  in  closer 
relation  to  the  history  and  tradition  of  his  people, 
and  could  and  must  have  fuller  knowledge  of  it 
than  modern  criticism  could  have.  Besides,  his 
view  is  confirmed  by  the  historical  narratives,  i 
Sam.  i.-iii.,  where  Shiloh  actually  appears  as  the 
central  sanctuary.  Not  only  does  Elkanah  the 
Ephraimite  betake  himself  there  year  by  year,  in 
order  to  pray  and  offer  sacrifice  (i  Sam.  i.  3),  but 
all  the  Israelites  come  there  to  offer  sacrifice  (chap, 
ii.  14)  and  the  sons  of  Eli  transgressed  against 
all  Israel  (ii.  22,  23).  The  ark  of  the  covenant 
was  there,  the  palladium  of  the  whole  people, 
which  assured  them  of  the  presence  of  Jahwe 
(see  chap.  iii.  3,  iv.  3,  and  also  Judges  xxi.  19). 

Thus  from  the  combination  of  Jer.  vii.  12 
with  the  history  it  follows  that  the  Deutero- 
nomic  requirement  of  a  central  sanctuary  was 
already  in  force  at  the  time  of  the  Judges. 
But  the  idea  of  unity  of  worship  has  nothing 
doubtful  or  difficult  in  it  even  at  the  time  of 
Moses,  even  if  Moses  had  given  Israel  nothing 
further  than  its  national  Deity.  And  con- 
versely, criticism  does  not  succeed  in  discovering 
elements  the  operation  of  which  must  have  led 
in   the   seventh   century  to    the   concentration  of 


48    ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

worship.  The  reference  to  the  deliverance  of 
Jerusalem  from  the  danger  threatening  it  through 
Sennacherib  is  absolutely  incorrect.  If  Jerusalem 
was  saved  although  Jahwe  was  worshipped  at 
various  places,  that  was  surely  the  best  proof  that 
Jahwe  was  satisfied  with  the  prevailing  conditions. 
The  concentration  of  worship  at  Jerusalem  must 
lie  the  farther  away  from  the  time  of  Manasseh, 
Amon  and  Josiah,  as  Jerusalem  was  a  very  seat 
of  idolatry  and  nature-worship  (comp.  Kohler,  as 
above,  iii.  157,  note  i). 

Modern  criticism,  indeed,  takes  much  credit  to 
itself  for  showing  the  development  of  religion  ; 
but  very  erroneously.  According  to  it  we  can- 
not speak  of  a  development  the  result  of  which, 
in  principle,  was  in  existence  from  the  beginning 
and  therefore  really  necessary,  but  only  of  the 
tricks  of  history  which  are  brought  about  by 
accidents.  So  here.  Deut.  xii.  compared  with 
Ex.  XX.  24  signifies  no  development,  but  a 
revolution  the  result  of  which,  it  is  alleged,  was 
in  no  way  prepared  for,  and  which  was  as  foreign 
to  and  out  of  sympathy  with  the  spirit  of  the 
people  as,  according  to  the  Biblical  view,  the 
legislation  once  given  by  Moses  had  been.  So 
far,  modern  criticism  shows  no  advance  on  the 
Biblical  view ;  but  the  latter  has  an  important 
advantage  over  it ;  according  to  it  there  is  really 
a  development,  namely,  in  the  understanding  of 


NEW  DIFFICULTIES  CREATED   49 

the  revelation  ;  the  people  are  led  by  their  history 
more  and  more  to  acknowledge  those  laws  (on 
this  point  see  especially  J.  Robertson's  volume). 

If  we  say  that  Deut.  in  its  fundamental 
ideas  must  be  Mosaic,  we  do  not  of  course  mean 
that  particular  laws  could  not  have  been  incor- 
porated later  on ;  this  would  have  to  be  the 
subject  of  further  inquiries.  If  it  should  then  be 
found  that  individual  laws  indicate  a  later  time, 
this  we  could  calmly  recognise.  It  can  prove 
nothing  against  the  whole.  The  difficulties  are 
not  solved  by  the  acceptance  of  modern  criticism, 
but  insoluble  riddles  are  then  indeed  created. 

Finally,  we  adduce  here  one  more  passage, 
which  is  an  argument  for  the  great  antiquity 
of  Deut.  —  Judges  xvii.  and  foil.  There  the 
Ephraimite  Micah  has  appointed  one  of  his  sons 
as  his  priest  for  his  domestic  worship.  A  wander- 
ing Levite  casually  arrives  there.  Micah  detains 
him,  appoints  him  as  his  priest  and  says  (Judges 
xvii.  13),  "  Now  know  I  that  the  Lord  will  do 
me  good,  seeing  I  have  a  Levite  to  my  priest." 
How  would  that  be  possible,  if  even  in  the  decay- 
ing time  of  the  judges  there  was  not  still  at  least 
the  remembrance  that  Levi  was  appointed  to 
the  priestly  office  ?  This  too  points  to  the 
Mosaic  origin  of  Deut  (comp.  Deut.  x.  8  and 
foil.,  xviii.  1-8,  xxxiii.  8-1 1). 

As  it  is  not  our  work  here  to  discuss  the 
E 


50    ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT  ? 

further  evidence  for  and  against  the  Mosaic  origin, 
we  may  refer  to  Hengstenberg,  Havernick  and 
Schulz,  and  also  to  Kleinert.  That,  in  particular, 
the  prophets  presuppose  the  unity  of  worship, 
and  that  those  who  preceded  the  reformation  of 
worship  differ  in  no  respect  from  those  who  came 
after  it,  has  been  unanswerably  shown  by  Breden- 
kamp  in  the  third  chapter  of  his  book  {Ort  des 
Kultus,  pp.  1 39-1 71). 

For  the  rest,  we  shall  come  once  more,  in  the 
next  section,  to  speak  of  the  modern  treatment  of 
traces  of  the  law  in  the  history. 

On  the  By  way  of  appendix  we  must  add  a  few  words 

theo^,      ^"  explanation  of  the  pious  fraud.      Many  of  the 

Deut.  is     niodern   critics   unreservedly  admit   that,  accord- 

a  pious  -'  ^ 

fraud.        ing  to  their  view  of  the  origin  of  Deut.,  an   act 

of  deceit  would  be  in  question.     Others  plainly 

are  very  anxious  to  remove  the  idea  of  deceit ; 

they  are  more  dangerous,  because  they  thus  do 

away  with  the  chief  objection  to  modern  criticism 

on  the  part  of  many.     It  is  therefore  the  more 

requisite  for  us  to  produce  clearness  on  this  point, 

and  to  show  that  here  there  is  exhibited  nothing 

but  a  well-meant  self-deception.     Thus  Kautzsch, 

for  example,  says  (p.  168) :  "  The  conclusion  that 

this    (the    original    Deuteronomy)   is   a   work    of 

deception,  overlooks  one  long  recognised  fact.      In 

reference  to  speeches  which  are  put  in  the  mouths 


A  PIOUS  FRAUD  51 

of  older  authorities,  the  idea  of  literary  ownership 
is  utterly  foreign  to  the  Old  Testament  writers,  as 
to  the  ancient  world  generally.  Only  let  the  con- 
viction once  appear  justified  that  what  is  proposed 
is  in  accordance  with  the  thought  and  spirit  of 
that  more  ancient  authority,  and  it  is  also  justifi- 
able to  speak  in  its  name.  This  holds  good  of 
the  original  Deuteronomy  as  well  as  of  the  so- 
called  Priestly  Code,  which  in  innumerable  passages 
introduces  Moses  as  speaking,  in  the  same  way  as 
a  Solomon  is  represented  by  the  *  Preacher '  as 
testifying  to  the  vanity  of  all  things."  ^ 

On  this  we  may  remark  that,  in  the  first  place, 
the  question  here  is  not  merely  of  a  pleasing 
speech,  such  as  perhaps  a  Thucydides  or  a  Livy, 
according  to  circumstances,  put  in  the  mouth  of 
their  heroes,  but  of  introducing  a  legislation  which 
was  intended  to  strike  deep  into  the  life,  but  could 
not  do  it  without  a  Mosaic  cloak  (comp.  p.  24). 
The  parallel,  therefore,  does  not  hold.  Secondly, 
in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  Book  of  the  Covenant 
— recognised  as  Mosaic  in  the  seventh  century, 
even  according  to  the  critics,  and  used  by  Deut. 
— permitted,  according  to  modern  exegesis,  the 
multiplicity  of  altars  expressly  in  the  name  of 
Moses,  the  authors  of  D  could  not  enter- 
tain the  conviction   that  what  was   proposed   was 

^  Similarly  Professor  Driver,  Dcuteronowy,  Introd.  pp.  Ivii.-lxii. 
—Trans. 


52    ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

in  accordance  with  the  thought  and  spirit  of 
Moses.  On  both  grounds  the  comparison  with 
**  the  Preacher "  is  also  quite  inappropriate.^  In 
the  latter  case  it  was  really,  comparatively,  a 
matter  of  indifference  whether  Solomon  was 
the  author  or  not.  But  for  the  carrying  out 
and  fulfilment  of  Deut.  everything  depended  on 
whether  Moses  was  the  author  or  not.  Only  in 
the  former  case  would  the  people  submit  (comp- 
§§  3  and  4).  Therefore  the  covering  must  in  this 
case  have  been  carried  so  far  that,  entirely  for 
the  purpose  of  deception,  a  multitude  of  individual 
laws  (of  which  we  have  only  cited  a  few)  should 
have  been  put  forward  which  had  not  the  slightest 
agreement  with  the  practical  purpose  of  Deut. 
(comp.  §  5,  ^)-  We  should  then  have  to  do 
here  with  a  deception  of  unparalleled  clever- 
ness. Whoever  accepts  the  modern  view  must 
take  this  into  the  bargain.  We  will  therefore 
proceed  in  the  purely  historical  method,  and  leave 
the  dogmatic  decision  to  each  individual.  It 
might  of  course  be  questioned  whether  from  the 
historical  standpoint  alone  it  can  appear  correct 
to  attribute  to  people  who  introduced  and  repre- 
sented the  highest  religious  and  ethical  ideas  such 
a  deception  at  the  same  time,  unless  we  have  the 
evidence  for  it  in  our  hands  in  black  and  white. 

^  For  the  reasons  given  it  is  also  clear  that  an  appeal  to  the 
pseudonymous  apocalyptic  literature  does  not  hold  good  ;  for  the 
circumstances  of  Deut.  are  quite  different. 


RESULTS  ARRIVED  AT        53 

Here  we  break  off  our  inquiry  and  only  sum  up  Summary, 
in  conclusion  the  result  which  has  been  arrived  at. 

The  narrative  in  2  Kings  xxii.  and  foil,  showed 
us  that  the  earlier  origin  of  Deut.  is  to  be 
accepted  not  only  as  possible  but  even  as  neces- 
sary (§  i) ;  further,  that  in  the  reformation  of 
worship  under  Josiah  the  movement  was  not  at 
all,  or  at  least  not  mainly,  for  the  concentration 
of  worship,  but  for  the  abolition  of  idolatry  in 
and  around  Jerusalem  ;  when  with  this  we  com- 
pared Deut.  it  was  clear  that  the  latter  put  the 
unity  of  worship  in  the  very  foreground,  whilst 
the  prohibition  of  idolatry  had  only  a  subsidiary 
importance  in  comparison  with  it,  so  that  here 
also  the  impossibility  of  the  modern  view  followed, 
according  to  which  Deut.  was  produced  with 
a  view  to  that  reformation  (§  5,  <^) ;  to  the 
same  conclusion  we  were  led  by  a  mass  of  indi- 
vidual instructions,  which  are  not  at  all  suited  to 
the  seventh  century,  and  would  only  be  possible 
on  the  assumption  of  the  most  skilful  deception, 
but  would  in  part  remain  even  then  unexplained 
(§  5,  b).  The  modern  view  broke  down  further,  as 
soon  as  we  tried  to  picture  to  ourselves  the 
origin  of  Deut.  and  asked  after  the  author  ;  the 
critics,  in  mutual  contradiction,  here  discovered 
their  weaknesses  (§  2).  With  the  modern  view, 
moreover,  the  Mosaic  disguise  (§3)  and  the  result 
(§  4)  remained   a   puzzle,   and   finally   the  whole 


54    ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

hypothesis  was  shown  to  be  impossible  by  the 
traces  which  point  much  farther  back  (§  6).  To 
this  we  add  that  modern  criticism  has  not  suc- 
ceeded in  proving  an  actual  development  (comp. 
under  §  6)  or  in  showing  the  alleged  agreement 
between  law  and  history  for  Deut.  in  the  pre- 
exilic  history  from  Josiah  on,  apart  from  the 
year  623.  All  these  arguments  taken  together 
must  have  demonstrated  the  untenability  of  the 
now  almost  universal  placing  of  Deut.  in  the 
seventh  century. 

At  the  same  time  we  have  already  obtained 
some  material  for  the  criticism  of  the  modern 
critical  methods : — 

{a)  If  a  law  is  generally  transgressed,  and 
therefore  is  quite  out  of  sympathy  with  the 
popular  mind,  this  is  by  no  means  evidence 
of  a  later  origin  ;  otherwise  Deut.  and  the 
Books  of  the  Covenant  would  have  to  be  post- 
exilic. 

{b)  A  law  accepted  as  Mosaic  may  remain 
disregarded  even  by  the  most  devout,  without  its 
non-existence  at  the  particular  time  having  to  be 
deduced  ;  otherwise  the  Books  of  the  Covenant 
calmly  violated  by  the  pious  king  must  only  have 
originated  after  623  (see  §  i,  <^). 

{c)  A  law  which  has  formerly  been  in  operation 
may  disappear  without  a  single  trace,  as  the  fate 
of  Deut.  shows  (see  the  whole  discussion). 


MODERN  DATE  OF  PC         55 

id)  It  is  an  arbitrary  modern  principle,  and 
for  criticism  itself  a  dangerous  one,  that  the  later 
compilers  of  historical  books  not  merely  judge 
history  one-sidedly,  but  invent  it.  For  this 
principle  could  be  applied  to  2  Kings  ii.  and  foil, 
and  other  narratives  accepted  by  criticism,  and 
then  we  have  no  longer  any  knowledge  of 
Israelitish  history  at  all.  We  must  therefore 
either  abandon  this  principle  or  renounce  the  idea 
of  constructing  a  history  of  Israel. 

Thus  far  our  negative  result,  with  which  here 
we  are  principally  concerned.  For  a  positive 
construction  this  much  has  at  the  same  time 
resulted,  that  every  theory  must  break  down  at 
the  very  outset  which  does  not  attribute  to  Moses 
at  least  the  essential  kernel  of  Deut.  (see  §§  3, 
4j  5  <^)  6) ;  whether  more  is  to  be  maintained 
must  be  left  to  further  inquiries. 


II.   Criticism  of  the  Modem  Dating  of  the 
Priestly  Code 

A.  Criticism  of  the  Modern  Result 

We  hope  that  we  have  demonstrated  this  much 
by  the  preceding  discussion,  that  the  greatest 
difficulties  lie  in  the  way  of  the  now  almost  uni- 
versally accepted  date  of  Deut.,  and  this  con- 
clusion   of    ours    is    especially    important  to    us 


56    ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

as  here  for  the  first  time  the  dazzling  and  alluring 
correspondence  between  law  and  history  is  proved 
to  be  mere  outward  show,  it  being,  moreover,  once 
more  emphasised  that  even  according  to  the 
modern  view  it  was  only  quite  superficial  (see 
p.  43).  We  proceed  now  to  point  out  the  same 
discrepancy  for  the  Priestly  Code  (P  or  PC)  and 
the  exilic  or  post-exilic  date  attributed  to  it. 

The  law  I-   Here  also  we  have  in  Neh.  viii.-x.  a  firm 

E^  ^^^N  h^  starting-point.  We  find  ourselves  in  the  year  444. 
viii.-x.).  Ezra  is  requested  by  the  people  to  bring  the  book 
of  the  law  ;  he  reads  it  before  the  assembled  con- 
gregation, whilst  the  Levites  add  their  instructions. 
The  people  are  troubled,  but  are  appeased  by  the 
Levites.  In  the  following  days  there  is  observed, 
for  the  first  time  since  the  days  of  Joshua,  the 
feast  of  tabernacles  commanded  in  the  book  of 
the  law  exactly  as  it  was  prescribed,  whilst  the 
reading  continues,  and  finally  they  enter  into  a 
covenant,  after  a  long  confession  of  sin,  in  which 
the  whole  history  of  Israel  is  recapitulated.  We 
see,  therefore,  that  the  course  of  events  is  in  many 
respects  similar  to  the  familiar  one  of  the  year 
623,  and  that,  accordingly,  analogous  conclusions 
follow  from  the  outset.  When  in  Neh.  viii.  the 
request  comes  from  the  people  to  bring  the  book 
of  the  law  of  Moses,  we  certainly  get  the  impression 
from  viii.  8  and  foil.,  and  generally  from  the  whole 


VIEW  OF  KAUTZSCH  57 

narrative,  that  the  contents  of  this  book  of  the  law 
were  substantially  new  to  the  people.  We  are 
again,  therefore,  able  to  agree  entirely  with 
Kautzsch  (p.  194)  when  he  says  :  "  In  the  highly 
interesting  original  narrative  of  the  introduction 
of  the  new  law  (Neh.  viii.-x.)  there  is  a  twofold 
assumption  :  first  (viii.  i),  that  the  book  of  the 
law  had  hitherto  been  kept  only  by  Ezra  and 
therefore  had  been  brought  by  him  from  Babylon  ; 
and  secondly,  that  the  contents  were  up  till 
then  quite  unknown  to  the  people."  As,  how- 
ever, from  the  fact  that  Deut.  was  regarded  in 
2  Kings  xxii.  and  foil,  as  something  unknown, 
the  conclusion  was  drawn  that  Deut.  could 
only  have  originated  a  short  time  before,  so  a 
corresponding  conclusion  is  now  drawn  for  P 
from  Neh.  viii.-x.  So  Wellhausen,  for  example, 
says  (as  above,  p.  415):  "It  is  obvious  that  we 
have  in  Neh.  viii.-x.  an  exact  parallel  to  2  Kings 
xxii.,  xxiii.  Especially  to  xxiii.  1-3  :  Josiah 
caused  all  the  elders  of  Judah  and  Jerusalem  to 
be  gathered,  and  went  up  with  the  men  of  Judah 
and  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  with  the  priests 
and  prophets  and  all  the  people,  both  small  and 
great,  to  the  house  of  the  Lord.  There  he  read 
to  the  people  all  the  words  of  the  book  of  the  law 
and  made  a  covenant  with  all  the  people  before 
the  Lord  to  keep  all  the  words  of  this  book.  Just 
as  it  is  attested  that  Deuteronomy,  made  known 


58    ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

in  the  year  621,  was  till  then  unknown,  precisely 
in  the  same  way  is  it  attested  that  the  other  Thora 
of  the  Pentateuch — for  it  is  certain  from  Neh.  ix., 
X.  29  and  foil,  that  Ezra's  book  of  the  law  was 
the  whole  Pentateuch — which  became  known  in 
the  second  half  of  the  fifth  century,  was  until  then 
unknown.  It  is  first  of  all  indisputably  clear 
that  Deuteronomy  was  the  first,  and  the  Priestly 
Thora  the  second,  stage  of  the  legislation.  But, 
further,  the  same  conclusion  as  to  the  date  of  the 
origin  of  Deuteronomy  which  is  usually  drawn 
from  its  publication  and  introduction  by  Josiah, 
must  be  drawn  regarding  the  date  of  the  origin  of 
the  Priestly  Code  from  its  publication  and  intro- 
duction by  Ezra  and  Nehemiah." 

Now,  assuming  that  all  was  here  in  order,  any 
one  who  follows  our  previous  discussions  would 
come  to  the  converse  analogous  conclusion  : — 
Just  as  Deut.,  notwithstanding  the  narrative 
in  2  Kings  xxii.  and  foil,  not  only  may,  but 
must  be  older,  in  the  same  way  the  book  of  the 
law  referred  to  in  Neh.  viii.-x.  may  at  least  belong 
to  another  time  than  the  exilic  and  post-exilic, 
although  its  contents  were  regarded  as  something 
new.  But  even  one  who  has  not  been  con- 
vinced by  our  criticism  of  the  modern  placing  of 
Deuteronomy,  will  at  least  have  to  admit  that 
the  circumstances  in  Neh.  viii.-x.  are  essentially 
different  from   those  of   2   Kings  xxii.  and  foil., 


CRITICS  DIFFER  59 

as  soon  as  it  is  admitted  that  then  not  merely  the 
Priestly  Code,  but  the  whole  Pentateuch,  was 
published.  This  is  VVellhausen's  view  (see  the 
quotation  above  ^) ;  but  it  is  most  strenuously 
opposed  by  almost  all  modern  critics,  so  that  we 
do  not  here  finish  the  inquiry  as  to  what  was  the 
scope  of  that  book  of  the  law.  The  result  is  of 
the  greatest  importance,  and  is  again  quite  sufficient 
by  itself  to  disclose  the  untenableness  of  the  Graf- 
Wellhausen  hypothesis  ;  only  the  critics,  differing 
as  they  do  on  this  important  point,  have  relieved 
us  of  the  task  and  have  mutually  revealed  the 
weaknesses  of  their  positions,  so  as  to  free  us  once 
more  from  the  reproach  of  dogmatic  prejudice 
(see  pp.  14,  15). 

Wellhausen,  to  whom  the  whole  hypothesis 
owes  its  name,  is  therefore  of  opinion  that  in  Neh. 
viii.-x.  the  whole  Pentateuch  is  meant  and  is  read 
aloud,  and  says  in  his  fourth  edition  of  1895,  in 
spite  of  the  contradiction  of  his  followers,  that  this 
admits  of  no  doubt  at  all.  I  associate  myself 
entirely  with  his  reasons.  For  that  the  Priestly 
Code  is  certainly  not  sufficient  is  clear  to  every 
unprejudiced  person  from  the  historical  description 
of  chap,  ix.,  but  above  all  from  Neh.  x.  29  and 
foil.,  where  the  allegiance  to  the  law  of  Moses  is 
specified.     Thus,   according   to    the    modern  dis- 

^  "  It   is   certain    that    Ezra's    book   of  the  law  was  the  whole 
Pentateuch." 


60    ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

tinction  of  sources,  there  is  found  in  P  no  law 
(not  even  Num.  xxxiii.  5  i  and  foil.)  which  forbids 
alliance  with  the  inhabitants  of  the  land  ;  perhaps 
however,  in  Ex.  xxxiv.  11-16  (J),  and  in  Deut, 
e.g.  vii.  2  and  foil. — comp.  Neh.  x.  30.  Similarly 
there  is  lacking  in  P  any  command  which  is 
covered  by  Neh.  x.  3 1  ("  And  that  we  would 
leave  [the  land  fallow]  the  seventh  year,  and  the 
exaction  of  every  debt ") ;  comp.,  on  the  other 
hand,  Deut  xv.  2  for  the  form  Ex.  xxiii.  11. 
The  prohibition  (Neh.  xiii.  i)  "  that  the  Ammonite 
and  the  Moabite  should  not  come  into  the 
congregation  of  God  for  ever  "  was,  according  to 
the  same  verse,  found  written  in  the  book  of 
Moses  ;  but  it  only  exists  in  Deut.  xxiii.  3-6,  and 
not  in  the  Priestly  Code.  (Criticism,  it  is  true, 
ascribes  this  passage  to  the  writer  of  Chronicles.) 
"  Since,  further,  the  law  read  aloud  by  Ezra 
and  then  sworn  to  is  throughout  described  by 
the  formulas  of  Deuteronomy  (.  .  .  D^ipQmp  nh:2p 
D^pn,  Neh.  X.  29),  it  cannot  admit  of  the  least 
doubt  that  Ezra's  book  of  the  law  contained  not 
merely  the  priestly,  but  also  the  Deuteronomic 
portion  of  the  Pentateuch  together  with  Ex.  xx.- 
xxiii.  34,  i.e.  that  it  was  just  the  complete 
Pentateuch"  (Dillmann,  as  above,  p.  672).  We 
agree  therefore  with  Wellhausen  on  this  point. 
Then  there  results  this  much  in  the  first  place, 
that  the  argument  from  analogy  referred  to  above 


LAW  BECOME  UNKNOWN      61 

is  not  a  true  argument  from  analogy  ;  for  other- 
wise, from  the  fact  that  in  Nehemiah  viii.-x.  the 
people  hear  something  new,  it  would  follow  that 
the  whole  Pentateuch  must  have  originated  only 
a  short  time  before  444.  This,  therefore,  is  rather 
the  result :  from  the  fact  that  the  law  in  Neh.  viii.-x. 
was  unknown  to  the  people,  it  is  not  to  be  inferred 
that  it  had  never  been  known,  but  only  that  it  had 
become  unknown.  But  that  which  must  necessarily 
be  assumed  for  the  rest  of  the  Pentateuch,  apart 
from  the  Priestly  Code,  is  possible  for  it  also. 

These  are  the  necessary  consequences  which 
follow  from  the  assumptions  of  Wellhausen, 
but  which  naturally  must  seem  to  him  very  un- 
congenial. For  here  it  would  be  proved  for 
the  second  time  that  writings  acknowledged 
even  by  criticism  as  of  canonical  authority  could 
be  absolutely  unknown  to  the  people,  or  at 
least  disregarded  by  them  (the  first  case  is  that  of 
the  Books  of  the  Covenant  in  the  year  623,  see 
pp.  7-10).  Wellhausen,  in  the  quotation  given 
above,  makes  an  entirely  arbitrary  attempt  to 
escape  from  this  consequence.  He  simply 
assumes  that  it  was  not  the  whole  Pentateuch, 
but  only  the  Priestly  Code,  that  was  new  to  the 
people.  But  according  to  the  narrative  in  Neh. 
viii.-x.,  it  is  quite  unjustifiable  to  suggest  such  a 
separation.  From  it  we  receive  the  impression 
throughout  that  in  essential  points  everything  was 


62    ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

new  to  the  people ;  even  if,  perchance,  certain 
details  were  known  to  them,  it  is  arbitrary  and  a 
petitio  pri7tcipii  to  exclude  from  these  the  require- 
ments of  PC  and,  conversely,  to  limit  to  PC 
that  which  was  new  to  the  people.  If,  therefore, 
the  conclusions  reached  above  are  irrefutable,  we 
see  in  them  a  confirmation  for  the  result  of  our 
inquiry  above  about  D.  If  it  is  clear  here  that 
the  whole  Pentateuch  was  unknown  to  the  people 
in  Neh.  viii.-x.,  although  even  according  to  criticism 
J  and  E  and  D  had  been  long  in  existence,  so 
from  the  fact  of  D  being  unknown  in  the  year 
623  it  is  not  to  be  concluded  that  it  did  not 
exist  and  have  authority  at  an  earlier  date. 

But,  passing  from  this  for  the  present,  there 
now  arises  in  connection  with  Wellhausen's  view 
of  the  origin  of  PC  an  enormous  difficulty, 
which  almost  all  other  critics,  e.g.  Reuss,  Kayser, 
Kautzsch,  quite  rightly  point  out.  Thus  the 
last-named  says  (as  above,  p.  194):  "The 
formerly  predominant  assumption  that  Ezra's  book 
of  the  law  was  the  whole  Pentateuch  is  quite 
impossible,"  and  Kayser  {Jahrbuch  fur  prakt. 
Theol.  1 88 1,  p.  520  and  foil.)  states  that  the 
converse  "  supplement  hypothesis,"  according  to 
which  PC  was  inserted  in  the  Pentateuch  by 
Ezra,  is  even  more  untenable  than  the  old  one. 
And  why  ?  If  it  is  an  unlikely  assumption  that 
the  priests,  who  were  specially  interested  in  the 


AN  INCONCEIVABLE  THEORY  63 

publication  of  P,  should  at  all  have  published 
along  with  it  other  laws  which  had  no  relation 
to  PC,  it  is  quite  impossible,  and  not  merely 
"  doubtful  and  highly  improbable "  (Cornill,  as 
above,  p.  6^^  to  believe  that  they  should  have 
received  laws  directly  opposed  to  PC,  such  as, 
according  to  the  view  of  modern  critics,  are  con- 
tained in  the  two  Books  of  the  Covenant,  Ex. 
xx.-xxiii.  34,  and  Deut.  Or  are  we  actually  to 
suppose  that  the  priests,  who  had  just  restored 
with  much  trouble  the  PC,  and  assume  therein 
the  unity  of  worship,  published  at  the  same  time 
an  enactment  such  as  appears  in  Ex.  xx.  24, 
which  according  to  criticism  itself  flatly  contradicts 
that  assumption  ?  Is  it  conceivable  that  the 
priests  would  place  on  a  par  with  the  laws  in 
which  such  numerous  sources  of  income  had 
been  assured  to  them,  the  Deuteronomic  laws 
which  promised  them  so  much  less  ?  Or  is  it 
quite  conceivable  that  the  persons  who  had  just 
secured  to  themselves  the  exclusive  prerogative  of 
the  priesthood  as  against  the  Levites,  would  ever 
have  agreed  that  at  that  very  time  Deut,  in 
which  that  prerogative  belonged  to  all  Levites, 
should  be  read  aloud  along  with  it  and  regarded 
as  canonical  ?  They  would  certainly  have  had 
to  reckon  with  the  fact  that  the  people,  that  the 
Levites,  in  opposition  to  the  priests,  would  appeal, 
in   case  of  all    enactments  disagreeable  to  them, 


64    ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

to  the  laws  which,  even  according  to  modern 
criticism,  had  long  been  regarded  as  Mosaic  and 
authoritative.  Therefore  it  is  a  sheer  impossibility 
that  the  priests,  in  case  they  were  the  authors 
of  PC,  should  recognise  as  their  standard 
Deut.  and  the  Books  of  the  Covenant,  and 
impose  them  upon  the  people,  at  the  same 
time  as  PC.  We  have  only  adduced  a  few 
instances  which  might  be  increased  at  will  ;  I 
think,  however,  that  they  will  suffice  to  show 
the  untenableness  of  the  modern  hypothesis  in 
Wellhausen's  form.  It  has,  moreover,  not  been 
possible  to  evade  the  force  of  these  arguments. 
Bredenkamp's  prediction  (as  above,  p.  lo)  that 
the  Reuss-Kayser  standpoint  will  prevail  has 
come  true.  So  far  as  I  can  see,  Wellhausen 
stands  almost  in  isolation  in  his  view  ;  his  school 
has  not  followed  him  on  this  point. 

And  yet  still  more  weighty  reasons  tell  against 
the  modern  hypothesis  as  conceived  by  Reuss, 
Kayser,  Cornill,  and  Kautzsch  than  as  it  is  held 
by  Wellhausen.  Against  them  the  narrative  of 
Neh.  viii.-x.  is  decisive.  This,  as  we  saw  (see 
pp.  59,  60),  simply  excludes  the  view  according  to 
which  the  book  of  the  law  published  by  Ezra 
was  only  the  PC.  For  as  we  have  here  onl}^ 
an  "  original  narrative  "  (Kautzsch,  p.  194)  before 
us,  any  further  words  are  really  superfluous  and 
unnecessary.      This  view  has  against  it  the  sources 


EZRAS  LAW  MORE  THAN  PC  65 

recognised  by  itself  as  suitable  and  genuine.      But 
it  is  also  untenable  in  itself.     If  it  is  assumed  that 
the  laws  previously  acknowledged  as  Mosaic  (the 
Books  of  the  Covenant  and  D)  were  still  familiar 
to  the  people  and  of  authority  in  444 — and   that 
is   the   opinion  of  those  critics — then     PC    could 
not   at   all   become   effectual,  on    account   of  the 
contradictions  touched  on  above  ;    no  advantage 
therefore   is    gained    against    Wellhausen    by  this 
view.       If,    however,    we    were    to    assume    that 
the   Book    of    the  Covenant  and    Deut.    had    in 
the     year    444    passed    into    oblivion,    then    the 
hindrance  to    the    introduction  of     PC    would,  it 
is   true,    be   removed    for   the   moment ;    but   the 
difficulty  with  which   Wellhausen  is  charged,  and 
which   at  an  earlier  point   (444  itself)  had    been 
happily  avoided,  would  return  at  a  later  point,  in 
somewhat  altered  form   but  with  increased  force, 
namely,  when  the  lost  books  were  again  discovered 
and  introduced. 

We  have  not,  I  think,  maintained  too  much, 
when  we  said  that  on  this  question  alone  the 
modern  hypothesis  must  break  down. 

Wellhausen's  view,  according  to  which  it  is 
the  Pentateuch  that  is  promulgated  in  Neh.  viii.- 
X.,  is  indeed  true  to  that  narrative,  but  is  im- 
possible, because  the  authors  of  PC  could  not 
publish  at  the  same  time  with  it  other  laws 
contradicting  and  abrogating  it. 

F 


66    ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

The  view  shared  by  most  of  the  critics,  accord- 
ing to  which  it  was  only  the  Priestly  Code  that 
was  promulgated  in  Neh.  viii.-x.,  is  on  the  face 
of  it  untenable,  for  it  contradicts  the  narrative 
acknowledged  as  "  original,"  and  is  besides  as 
impossible  in  itself  as  that  of  Wellhausen.  But 
the  difficulties  on  both  sides,  according  to  the 
judgment  of  the  critics  themselves,  are  so  enormous, 
that  I  see  no  other  course  open  to  them  than  to 
give  up  the  Graf- Wellhausen  hypothesis  that  PC 
did  not  originate  until  the  exile. 

The  2.  We  reach  the  same  result  if  we  consider  the 

Code  itself  Priestly  Code  itself,  and  try  to  picture  to  ourselves 
dict*s^^by    ^^^  ^^^'  *^^  arrangement,  its  result  and  its  origin, 

its  aim,      according  to  the  assumptions  of  modern  criticism. 

the  later  ^  ^ 

date.  It  is  necessary  in   the  first  place  to   be   quite 

clear  as  to  what  the  authors  of  PC,  according  to 
modern  criticism,  aimed  at,  so  much  the  more  as 
the  critics  themselves  on  this  point  often  make 
use  of  vague  and  obscure  expressions.  Did  the 
authors  in  their  work  live  in  the  past,  and  had 
they  therefore  a  theoretical,  historical,  archaeo- 
logical interest  in  it,  or  did  they  expect  by  the 
statement  of  quite  new  ideals  and  standards  to 
produce  an  effect  upon  the  future  ?  Did  they 
only  want  to  codify  what  they  had  already  put 
into  practice  in  order  to  rescue  from  oblivion  the 
usages  of  worship,  perhaps  also  to  comfort  them- 


THE  AIM  OF  PC  67 

selves  for  the  sorrowful  present  in  this  occupation 
— certainly  a  strange  comfort ! — or  had  they  in 
view  the  setting  forth,  in  opposition  to  the  past, 
of  a  programme  new  in  all  essential  points,  which 
should  be  carried  out,  in  order  the  better  to  save 
Israel  in  the  future  from  the  anger  of  their  God 
which  they  had  to  experience  in  the  exile  ?  Many 
expressions  of  criticism  sound  as  if  the  former 
were  meant.  We  only  quote  some  statements  of 
Wellhausen.  Thus  on  page  60 :  "  So  long  as 
sacrificial  worship  was  the  practice,  it  was  zealously 
carried  out,  but  they  did  not  trouble  themselves 
about  it  theoretically,  and  had  no  inducement  to 
put  it  into  book  form.  Now,  however,  the  temple 
was  destroyed,  sacrificial  worship  at  an  end,  the 
priestly  order  out  of  employment ;  it  is  conceivable 
that  the  sacred  practice  of  the  past  would  now  be 
made  the  subject  of  theory  and  of  writing,  in 
order  that  it  should  not  be  lost  ;  and  that  a 
banished  priest  (Ezekiel)  should  make  a  beginning 
by  drawing  the  picture  of  it  which  he  carried  in 
his  memory,  and  to  publishing  it  as  a  programme 
for  the  future  restoration  of  ^he  theocracy."  On 
p.  412  we  read :  "  Now  that  the  temple  was 
destroyed  and  God's  worship  interrupted,  the 
practice  of  the  past  must  be  depicted  if  it  was  not 
to  be  lost."  Finally,  a  note  on  p.  413:  "It 
must  often  happen  that  the  traditional  practice  is 
first  committed  to  writing  when  it  is  threatening 


68    ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT  ? 

to  die  out,  and  that  a  book  is,  so  to  speak,  the 
ghost  of  a  departed  life." 

On  this  we  remark  that  if  it  were  really- 
capable  of  proof,  which,  in  company  with  Dill- 
mann  and  others,  we  dispute,  that  the  laws  of 
worship  were  not  written  down  before  the  exile, 
but  had  only  propagated  themselves  from  the 
beginning  by  practice  and  oral  tradition  ;  if,  on 
the  other  hand,  P  was  really  in  essential  points 
only  the  codification  of  the  now  extinct  practice, 
we  might  continue  to  wonder  that  the  laws  had 
not  been  sooner  written  down  in  order  to  rescue 
them  from  misuse  and  caprice  ;  but  for  the  rest 
we  should  not  dispute  the  possibility  and  ad- 
missibility of  this  view.  But  that  is  not  by  any 
means  the  meaning  of  criticism  ;  those  sentences 
are  misleading  and  obscure.  How,  otherwise, 
could  Kautzsch,  for  example,  say  (as  above,  p. 
194):  "In  Nehemiah  viii.-x.  it  is  plainly  as- 
sumed that  the  contents  were  until  then  utterly 
unknown  to  the  people  "  ;  comp.  also  the  quotation 
from  Wellhausen  on  p.  57  and  foil.  If  PC  was 
really  only  for  codification  and  systematising  of 
the  practice  and  the  pre-exilic  usages,  then  the 
cleavage  which  was  formed  by  the  exile  was  by 
no  means  so  deep  as  it  is  elsewhere  represented  ; 
for,  according  to  Wellhausen's  usual  methods  of 
criticism,  it  should  be  possible  to  produce  plain 
traces    of   this    practice    which,   though    not    yet 


AN  UNTENABLE  THEORY     69 

reduced  to  book  form  in  PC,  was  yet  in  substantial 
harmony  with  it,  whereas  he  elsewhere  lays  all 
emphasis  on  the  fact  that  the  pre-exilic  practice 
not  merely  does  not  correspond  with  P,  but  con- 
tradicts it  at  every  step.  If  the  pre-exilic  history 
was  such  as  Wellhausen  and  his  school  elsewhere 
represent,  the  codification  of  the  enactments  and 
usages  which  held  good  at  that  time  must  have 
had  a  very  different  appearance  from  PC.  There 
could  then  have  been  found  in  the  latter  no 
tabernacle,  no  historical  explanation  of  the  feasts, 
no  limitation  of  the  priesthood  to  the  descendants 
of  Aaron. 

We  must  therefore  maintain  that,  according 
to  the  principles  of  modern  criticism  itself,  the 
explanation  of  PC  as  being  in  historical  interests 
is  untenable.  When  codification  and  systematising 
of  the  pre-exilic  practice  are  spoken  of,  these  are 
phrases  which  must  produce  quite  a  false  concep- 
tion. This  we  must  state  the  more  unhesitatingly, 
as  the  Wellhausen  hypothesis  might  appear  the 
more  admissible  on  account  of  this  vagueness. 
In  the  recovery  of  PC,  according  to  modern 
criticism,  the  process  is  not  the  codification  of 
the  past  in  the  conservative  or  historical  interest, 
but  the  presentation  and  execution  of  a  new 
programme,  though  in  details  it  might  be  linked 
on  to  older  usages.  They  did  not  therefore  re- 
produce, nor  did  they  produce  imaginative  work 


70    ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

at  random,  but  they  had  quite  a  definite  aim  in 
view  which  they  wished  to  reach,  and  did  actually 
reach,  as  history  attests.  Here,  too,  it  is  assumed, 
as  in  the  case  of  Deut.,  that  the  result  of  PC 
was  its  aim.  They  wanted,  after  the  restora- 
tion, to  preserve  Israel  from  new  guilt  and 
punishment,  by  showing  the  people  exactly  how 
they  should  keep  themselves  holy,  and  therefore 
regulating  the  ritual  in  the  minutest  detail,  and 
reducing  it  to  a  system. 

But  here  again  we  must  say  that  we  regard 
the  modern  hypothesis  as  absolutely  untenable. 
No  lack  of  sacrifices  was  permitted  by  those 
belonging  either  to  the  northern  or  to  the  southern 
kingdom  ;  this  is  clearly  shown  us  by  the  polemic 
of  the  prophets  against  the  sacrifice  on  the  mere 
performance  of  which  the  people  relied  (comp., 
for  example,  Am.  v.  18-27;  Is.  i.  11-15;  Jer. 
vii.  21  and  foil.).  The  lack  was  in  justice  and 
righteousness,  and  therefore  they  had  to  threaten 
the  people  with  exile  "  in  spite  of  the  previous 
perfection  of  the  sacrificial  rites "  (Kohler,  iii. 
p.  527,  note  2);  history  justified  the  prophets. 
How  then  in  all  the  world  could  the  priests  have 
arrived  at  the  idea  of  seeing  now  in  the  violation 
of  the  sacrificial  rites  the  reason  of  the  exile,  and 
of  beholding  therefore  the  salvation  of  the  world 
in  an  exact  performance  and  strict  fulfilment  of 
these  ?      Ezek.  xl.-xlviii.  need  not  be  appealed  to. 


EZEKIEL'S  VISION  71 

In  the  first  place,  we  must  not,  in  considering 
these  last  chapters  of  the  prophet,  forget  the 
earlier  ones.  Where  do  we  find  in  these  a  hint 
that  Israel  had  brought  upon  itself  the  punishment 
of  exile  by  defective  performance  of  the  sacrificial 
ritual  ?  No  ;  it  was  the  religious  falling  away  of 
Israel  from  its  God  that  was  made  its  reproach 
(comp.,  for  example,  chaps,  xvi.  and  xxiii.).  And 
just  as  little  does  Ezekiel  see  in  the  performance 
of  outward  worship  a  means  of  salvation  in  time 
of  need  ;  what  he  rather  demands  and  promises  is 
repentance  (chaps,  xviii.  and  xxxiii.),  is  the  new 
heart  of  flesh  and  the  new  spirit  (chap,  xxxvi.). 

And  further,  let  it  be  observed,  that  the  legis- 
lation of  Ezekiel  "  is  an  integral  element  of  a 
prophecy  which  refers  equally  to  the  future  form 
of  the  temple,  in  which  the  worship  demanded  by 
Ezekiel  shall  be  practised,  and  of  the  country  in 
whose  midst  this  temple  is  to  be  situated.  Only 
if  the  Holy  Land  has  experienced  the  transforma- 
tion proclaimed  by  Ezekiel  can  the  temple  of 
Ezekiel  be  built  in  it  (comp.  xl.  2),  and  it  is  only 
if  this  is  built  that  the  worship  described  by  him 
can  be  practised  in  it.  The  vision  of  Ezekiel 
xl.-xlviii.  is  therefore  neither  an  adumbration  of 
the  past  nor  a  rule  of  life  which  was  to  come  into 
force  at  once  after  the  return  from  the  exile,  and 
in  the  realisation  of  which  Israel  too  was  to  take 
part  from  the  moment  that  Jehovah  should   have 


72    ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

begun  it  by  the  transformation  of  the  Holy  Land" 
(Kohler,  as  above).  Comp.  especially  in  chap,  xlvii. 
the  temple  river,  and  its  wonderful  effects. 

To  sum  up,  it  remains  inexplicable  how  the 
authors  of  PC  in  the  exile  could  have  arrived  at 
the  idea  of  being  able,  by  propounding  a  ritual 
legislation,  to  assist  the  people  to  a  conduct 
pleasing  to  God,  and  thereby  to  happiness  and 
prosperity. 


The 

Priestly 

Code  not 

at  all 

adapted 

for  the 

purpose 

assigned 

to  it  by 

the 

critics. 


3.  In  pursuing  the  inquiry  it  is  most  necessary 
to  emphasise  strongly  the  special  aim  which  PC, 
according  to  criticism,  is  supposed  to  have  had. 

The  priests  wanted  to  put  out  a  programme. 
They  were  not  concerned,  therefore , with  an  abstract 
system  which  was  not  intended  to  be  introduced  ; 
no,  they  aimed  at  the  realisation  of  their  ideas  ; 
they  hoped  and  intended,  on  the  suitable  oppor- 
tunity after  the  exile,  to  introduce  and  carry  out 
practically  their  programme,  as  actually  happened 
in  the  period  from  444  onwards.  Now  here 
certainly  the  most  unfavourable  form  conceivable 
was  chosen,  so  that  we  must  wonder  at  the 
narrowness  of  the  authors.  The  whole  worship 
is  placed  in  the  closest  relation  with  the  imaginary 
tabernacle  which  was  afterwards  neither  erected 
nor  was  its  erection  desired  ;  sacrifice  must  be 
offered  in  it  alone.  Of  the  temple,  on  the  other 
hand,  to  the  re-erection  of  which  the  hopes  of  the 


AN  IMAGINARY  AIM  73 

prophets  were  directed  (see  Isaiah,  Micah,  and, 
above  all  !  Ezekiel  xl.-xlviii.),  and  the  building  of 
which  was  afterwards  most  energetically  urged  by 
Haggai  and  Zechariah,  there  is  not  the  slightest 
hint. 

The  whole  worship  on  the  day  of  atonement 
is  concentrated  at  the  ark  of  the  covenant  (Lev. 
xvi.),  of  the  restoration  of  which,  also,  no  one 
thought  ;  nay,  they  had  in  Jer.  iii.  i6  the  express 
prophecy  that  in  the  restoration  of  the  people  it 
would  neither  be  missed  nor  renewed. 

The  possibility  of  realising  the  whole  worship 
and  the  hierarchical  order  would  from  the  first 
depend  on  something  non-existent,  as  Kloster- 
mann  expresses  it  (as  above,  No.  7,  law  of  the 
sanctuary  and  the  camp  ;  No.  5,  the  date  of  origin). 
In  other  words,  the  special  design  of  the  authors 
to  introduce  their  system  into  practical  working 
is  from  the  outset  rendered  illusory  by  their  effort 
to  give  it  an  archaic  appearance. 

But  their  carelessness  goes  further.  They 
must  have  been  acquainted  with  Deut.,  and 
known  that  it  was  for  a  long  time  regarded 
as  Mosaic.  How  could  they  then  have  set  up 
another  legislation  as  Mosaic  in  opposition  to  that 
which  was  recognised  as  the  work  of  Moses,  with- 
out making  the  slightest  reference  to  the  latter  or 
even  as  much  as  hinting  at  an  attempt  at  com- 
parison between  the  differences  and  contradictions 


74    ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

of  Deut.  and  PC,  which  are,  according  to  modern 
criticism,  so  important  ?  How  could  they  clothe 
their  laws  in  a  form  so  divergent  from  the 
language  of  Deut.  ?  How,  above  all,  could  they 
place  PC  before  Deut.  in  point  of  time?  Thus, 
surely,  by  the  last  enactment  of  Moses  in  Deut. 
all  that  they  had  so  successfully  smuggled  in  by 
Mosaic  authority  would  be  undone.  For  Deut.  was 
regarded  as  the  last  will  of  the  great  lawgiver. 
If  they  had  made  Moses  give  PC  after  Deut. 
they  could  thus  have  easily  avoided  the  difficulties ; 
for  they  could  then  have  adapted  the  worship  not 
to  the  wandering  in  the  wilderness  but  to  the  time 
after  the  immigration,  and  thus  linked  it  not  to  a 
portable  sanctuary,  but  to  a  temple  ;  they  could 
find  an  explanation  for  the  possible  differences 
from  Deut.,  and  yet  with  all  this  they  would  have 
attained  what  they  desired — their  ritual  legislation 
would  go  under  the  authority  of  Moses. 

But  we  must  make  up  our  minds  to  regard  the 
authors  as  so  short-sighted,  if  we  are  to  hold  to 
the  modern  hypothesis.  That  involves  indeed  a 
strong  resolution  ;  for  these  men  otherwise  appear 
in  a  quite  different  light.  We  may  think  what 
we  like  of  the  religious  value  of  their  Levitical 
laws,  but  the  system  which  they  are  alleged  to 
have  discovered  and  set  forth  is  certainly  an 
imposing  one,  and  does  every  credit  to  their 
intelligence.     The  simple,  transparent,  but  great 


IMAGINARY  AUTHORS        75 

fundamental  ideas  (God  is  the  Lord  of  all  space, 
of  all  time,  of  all  property  and  of  all  life  ;  comp. 
Kautzsch,  pp.  190-193),  in  their  grand  carrying 
out  to  the  smallest  detail,  permit  of  any  other 
conclusion  rather  than  that  the  authors  had  such 
a  restricted  outlook,  and  Kautzsch  himself  speaks 
(as  above,  p.  193)  of  the  "profound  and  delicate 
symbolism  "  of  PC. 

The  modern  hypothesis  therefore  compels  us 
to  picture  to  ourselves  the  authors  of  PC  as  such 
self- contradictory  people  that,  on  the  one  hand, 
they  were  capable  of  thinking  out  and  constructing 
a  system  of  such  grandeur,  and,  on  the  other  hand, 
incapable  of  clothing  it  in  a  suitable  form,  nay,  so 
short-sighted  that  from  the  outset  they  rendered 
the  realisation  of  their  system,  which  specially 
concerned  them,  impossible  by  linking  it  on  to 
something  that  was  non-existent,  and  by  the  way 
in  which  they  clothed  it  in  Mosaic  dress — again^ 
in  my  opinion,  weighty  reason  for  the  untenable- 
ness  of  the  whole  hypothesis. 


4.  But  let  us  suppose  for  a  moment  that  it  were  The 

result  at- 
admissible,  and  that  we  might  conceive  of  people  tributed 

at  once  so  clever  and  so  foolish  ;  and  let  us  now  q^ite  in- 

inquire  into  the  result.      Then  our  astonishment  credible 
^  on  the 

and  doubt  must  be  increased  rather  than  dimin-  critical 

theory, 
ished.      Klostermann  is  quite  right  when  he  shows 

that  these  authors  of  PC  would  have  had  quite 


76    ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

incredible  success  with  their  designs.  We  are  to 
believe  that  the  people,  if  they  permitted  them- 
selves to  be  influenced  at  all  by  PC,  had  nothing 
more  pressing  to  do  than  to  carry  out  with  pre- 
cision its  enactments — P  at  any  rate  required  the 
most  painful  fulfilment  even  of  the  most  trifling 
details — i.e,  above  all  to  undertake  the  erection  of 
the  tabernacle  in  accordance  with  the  instructions 
given  ;  to  neglect  and  abandon  the  newly -built 
temple,  of  which  there  is  not  the  slightest  mention, 
and  after  which  PC  was  expressly  excluded  ;  ^  and, 
further,  to  make  an  ark  of  the  covenant. 

But  this  does  not  all  happen  ;  people  hear  as 
much  of  it  as  they  ought  to  hear.  The  unskilful- 
ness  of  the  authors  is  made  up  for  by  the  con- 
genial intelligence  of  the  people.  And  further, 
we  have  seen  above  how  it  was  impossible  for 
criticism  to  make  credible  and  profitable  the 
success  of  falsifying  the  history  of  Deuteronomy. 
But  here  is  something  still  more  impossible.  Be- 
sides the  sympathy  of  the  people's  intelligence 
with  the  enactments  of  PC,  they  are  credited 
with  a  really  more  than  naive  innocence,  through 
which  they  allow  themselves  to  be  made  fools  of. 
They  do  not  observe  that  here  there  is  something 
totally  new,  which  they  are  to  regard  as  Mosaic. 

^  Comp.  for  example  Lev.  xvii.  1-7,  where  it  is  to  be  a  statute 
for  ever  unto  them  throughout  their  generations  to  kill  every  sacri- 
ficial animal  at  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation,  and 
to  offer  it  there  at  the  same  time. 


INCREDIBLE  RESULT  77 

They  observe  nothing  of  the  above-mentioned 
contradictions  and  differences — which  according 
to  criticism  itself  are  so  striking — between  the 
present  legislation,  which  is  alleged  to  be  also 
Mosaic,  and  the  earlier  one.  They  believe  the 
entirely  new  picture  of  their  early  history  and  do 
not  venture  to  utter  the  slightest  doubt  about  it. 
The  new  legislation  is  naturalised  without  any 
conflict ;  and  yet  it  could  not  be  a  matter  of  in- 
difference to  any  one,  for  it  made  the  highest 
demands  on  the  time,  money,  and  natural  gifts  of 
each  individual,  and  must  have  made  life  as 
uncomfortable  as  possible.  Or  was  the  tendency 
to  the  Levitical  system  then  in  the  air  and  in  the 
spirit  of  the  time,  so  that  the  incredible  result  was 
thus  explained  ? 

Well,  if  we  consider  the  priests  of  that  time,  no 
one  will  be  willing  to  maintain  this.  They  dis- 
honour Jahwe  by  impure  offerings,  they  bring  to 
Him  blind,  lame,  and  sick  animals,  they  celebrate 
polluted  festivals,  as  may  be  read  in  the  prophet 
Malachi  (i.  6-14;  ii.).  Malachi  may  be  placed 
either  shortly  before  or  after  444.  This  much  is 
clear,  that  the  Jerusalem  priests  have  not  this 
Levitical  tendency  ;  and  yet  it  should  be  expected 
of  them  chiefly. 

Nor  have  the  people  this  tendency  ;  for  they 
rob  Jahwe  in  tithes  and  offerings  (see  Mai.  iii.  8)  ; 
they  do  not  sanctify  the  Sabbath  (Neh.  xiii.    15 


78    ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

and  foil.)  ;  they  do  not  provide  the  portions  of  the 
Levites  (Neh.  xiii.  lo  and  foil.),  although  they 
have  only  just  bound  themselves  to  obey  the  new 
book  of  the  law. 

Nor  do  the  historians  of  the  exile,  neither  the 
authors  of  the  books  of  Kings  nor  the  Deutero- 
nomist  editors,  show  anything  of  the  Levitical 
spirit  The  books  of  Kings  must  otherwise  have 
had  a  similar  appearance  to  that  of  the  Chronicles. 

Or  let  us  think  of  the  prophets.  Here,  along- 
side of  Ez.  xl.-xlviii.,  Haggai,  Zechariah  and 
Malachi,  which  certainly  bear  a  certain  Levitical 
impress,  we  have  Ez.  i.-xxxix.,  Is.  xl.-lxvi.,  and 
many  passages  from  the  earlier  prophets,  which 
criticism  places  in  the  exilic  and  post-exilic  period, 
but  which  without  exception  breathe  anything  but 
a  Levitical  spirit. 

In  the  same  way  we  may  think  of  the  Psalter, 
which  is  now  almost  generally  regarded  as  of  this 
date.  There,  too,  the  Levitical  tendency  is  almost 
utterly  lacking. 

Thus  the  result  produced  by  the  authors  of 
PC  remains  a  mystery.  The  people  allow  them- 
selves to  be  duped,  although  they  have  to  bear 
the  injury,  although  they  were  not  otherwise  in 
the  least  inclined  to  Levitism,  although  it  was 
surely  so  easy  to  detect  the  deception.  At  the 
same  time,  in  accepting  PC  they  do  not  take  hold 
of   it    blindly,   but  feel,  as  it  were    instinctively, 


PEOPLE  S  ATTITUDE  A  PUZZLE  79 

that  the  directions  about  the  tabernacle  (Ex. 
xxv.-xxxi.  ;  xxxv.-xl.)  and  about  the  ark.  of  the 
covenant,  with  the  existence  of  which  the  whole 
ritual  legislation  was  connected,  and  the  existence 
of  which  was  presupposed  for  all  generations,  had 
better  be  neglected  ;  and  so  they  select,  with  the 
congenial  intelligence,  what  suits  them. 

As  is  well  known,  certain  sections  of  PC  are 
assumed  as  those  in  which  we  first  find  the  law  of 
holiness  of  Lev.  xvii.-xxvi.  Many  now  think  that 
these  different  sections  were  made  known  at 
different  times,  and  partly  indeed  before  444. 
On  this  we  may  remark  that  the  more  such 
promulgations  are  assumed,  the  more  puzzling  be- 
comes the  result;  for  these  different  sections  vary 
considerably  from  one  another,  and  it  is  on  account 
of  these  very  variations  that  they  are  accepted. 
If,  then,  each  of  them  nevertheless  passes  itself 
off  as  Mosaic,  the  people  must  have  much  more 
frequently  allowed  themselves  to  be  pleased  with 
these  contradictions,  without  observing  them  or 
doubting  their  Mosaic  origin.  Therefore  it  has 
now  been  more  and  more  resolved  to  assume  the 
promulgation  of  all  these  various  sections  as  taking 
place  first  in  the  year  444.  Otherwise  the  starting- 
point  of  the  critics  would  at  once  break  down  : 
the  contents  of  that  legislation  could  not  have 
been  utterly  unknown  to  the  people  until  444 
(comp.    §    I    and   Kautzsch,    as   above,   p.    194). 


80    ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT  ? 

Kautzsch  infers  from  Neh.  viii.  13  and  foil,  that 
the  very  manner  in  which  the  feast  of  tabernacles 
is  observed  is  regarded  as  something  new,  and 
that  therefore  the  law  of  holiness,  to  which  that 
enactment  belongs  (cf.  Lev.  xxiii.  40),  was  then 
published  for  the  first  time.^  That,  for  the  rest, 
Kautzsch's  view  exchanges  a  great  disadvan- 
tage for  a  momentary  advantage  over  others 
will  appear  later.  Whether  or  not  the  difficulty 
which  confronts  criticism  through  the  success  of 
the  authors  of  PC  be  greater  for  some  than  for 
others,  it  is  in  any  case  great  enough  to  make  the 
Graf-Wellhausen  hypothesis  impossible. 

PC  could         5-  W^  saw  that  PC,  as  it   is  understood  by 

^*^.*^^T®^  criticism,  was  too  improbable  in  its  aim  (§  2),  too 

with  such  foolish  in  its  plan  (S  3),  too  incredible  in  its  result 

authors        ^ 

as  the        (§  4)  for  us  to  be  able  to  regard  the   modern  view 

as  justified.      It  is  also  too  full  of  contradiction  in 

the  method  of  its  origin  ;    this  shall  be  shown  in 

this  section. 

We  cannot  assume  that  some  of  the  work  of 

the  priests  was  published   in  an  underhand  way 

before  444  ;  the  success  would  have  been  a  priori 

impossible  if  the   people  had  observed    that   PC 

^  That  it  is  not  therefore  necessarily  new  follows  incontrovertibly 
from  the  comparison  with  Neh.  xiii.  i,  where  the  Deuteronomic 
enactment  (Deut.  xxiii.  3-6)  that  no  Ammonite  or  Moabite  should 
belong  to  the  congregation  of  God  is  introduced  in  quite  analogous 
phrase  :  "  it  was  found  written  in  the  law." 


critics 
assume. 


SECRET  AUTHORSHIP  81 

was  not  composed  by  Moses  at  all,  but  was  then 
handled  in  its  very  origin.  Moreover,  its  contents 
would  not  then  have  been  "  utterly  unknown  "  to 
the  people  until  444  (Kautzsch,  p.  194).  For  the 
same  reason  single  parts  and  sections  of  PC  could 
not  have  been  promulgated  before  444.  Other- 
wise their  contents  would  certainly  not  have  been 
"  utterly  unknown  "  to  the  people  ;  but,  above  all, 
the  quite  impossible  success  would  have  been  still 
more  impossible  if  it  had  been  repeated  on  every 
new  promulgation.  A  work  in  secret  was  therefore 
necessary,  of  which  no  one  must  learn  anything 
before  444.  But  then  we  heard  how  many  different 
hands,  nay,  how  many  different  circles  (Kautsch, 
p.  188),  must  have  worked  on  PC.  We  must 
wonder  all  the  more  that  of  the  work — requiring 
many  years — of  this  circle,  differing  in  so  many 
ways  among  themselves,  nothing  should  have  come 
to  light,  and  thus  at  one  stroke  exposed  the  whole 
deception  and  made  its  success  a  priori  impossible. 
How  then  are  we  further  to  think  of  this 
activity  of  the  priests  ?  I  frankly  confess  that  I 
cannot  form  any  idea  of  it  in  keeping  with  the 
result  which  they  achieved.  What  they  aimed  at 
was  the  system  which  we  find  in  PC.  This,  apart 
from  individual  links  with  the  past,  was  a  pure 
invention,  and  yet  they  agreed  so  wonderfully  in 
this  invention  that  it  is  impossible  that  they  could 
have  worked  independently  of  each  other.     They 

G 


82    ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

all  have  the  tabernacle,  they  all  have  the  great 
fundamental  ideas,  spoken  of  in  §  3.  But  how 
are  the  divergences  which  are  recognised  and  sup- 
posed (comp.  Kautzsch,  pp.  188  and  194)  to  be 
explained  ?  How  could  they  be  overlooked,  when, 
according  to  criticism,  they  are  so  obvious  ?  The 
same  people  who  are  such  clever  systematisers  and 
so  united  in  the  statement  of  the  great  funda- 
mental ideas,  in  which  they  could  so  easily  be  of 
different  opinions,  these  very  persons  are  at  the 
same  time  absolutely  incapable  of  arranging 
smaller  differences,  which  could  easily  lead  the 
people  to  notice  that  it  was  impossible  for  Moses 
to  be  the  author  of  such  divergent  views — 
differences,  too,  which  must  have  made  the  people 
hostile.  Why,  for  example,  is  the  age  for  service 
of  the  Levites  not  uniformly  prescribed,  but  now 
fixed  at  twenty-five,  now  at  thirty  years  of  age 
(comp.  Num.  viii.  24  and  foil,  with  iv.  3,  23,  30, 
etc.)  ?  Why  in  one  place  is  the  high-priest  alone 
anointed  (Ex.  xxix.  7  ;  Lev.  viii.  12,  xxi.  10), 
and  in  another  all  priests  (Num.  ii.  3  ;  Ex.  xxviii. 
41,  xxx.  30,  xl.  15)?  Why  is  the  blood  of  the 
sin-offering  in  Lev.  iv.  4-7,  14-17,  brought  into 
the  holy  place,  and  in  Ex.  xxix.  12,  14,  and  Lev. 
ix.  9,  I  5,  to  the  horns  of  the  altar  of  burnt-offering 
in  the  outer  court  ? 

The  same  want  of  systematic  unity  which  is 
here  shown   in    the  inconsistency  of   enactments 


DIVERSITY  OF  FORM  83 

appears  also  in  diversity  of  form.  It  is  clearly 
shown  in  the  lack  of  strict  order,  the  repetitions, 
the  differently-worded  introductory  formulae,  the 
different  statements  as  to  those  to  whom  the  laws 
are  addressed.  (For  the  lack  of  order  see  the 
whole  work  ;  for  the  second  point  compare  the 
laws  as  to  feasts  in  Num.  xxviii.  with  Lev.  xxiii., 
or  Ex.  xxvii.  20  and  foil,  with  Lev.  xxiv.  1-4, 
the  instructions  regarding  the  holy  lamp,  or  Ex. 
xxv.  30  with  Lev.  xxiv.  5  and  foil.,  those  about 
the  shewbread,  etc.  ;  for  the  third  and  fourth 
points  comp.  Ex.  xxv.  i,  xxx.  11,  17;  Lev.  iv. 
I,  v.  14,  vi.  I,  12,  etc.,  "and  Jahwe  spake  unto 
Moses,  saying  "  ;  the  same  formula  in  Ex.  xxxi. 
12,  only  with  "ipi^  instead  of  il^  ;  Lev.  i.  i,  "  and 
Jahwe  called  unto  Moses  and  spake  unto  him  out 
of  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation  " ;  Lev.  xi. 
I,  "And  Jahwe  spake  unto  Moses  and  Aaron, 
saying  unto  them";  Lev.  xiii.  i,  xiv.  33,  xv.  i  ; 
Num.  iv.  I,  17,  "And  Jahwe  spake  unto  Moses 
and  unto  Aaron";  Num.  xviii.  I,  8,  20,  "  And 
Jahwe  spake  unto  Aaron")  It  is  inconceivable 
that  a  school  with  whom  system  is  the  chief  thing 
(see  Wellhausen,  pp.  427,  412)  should  proceed  so 
carelessly  in  regard  to  form.  It  would  surely 
have  been  so  easy  to  allow  uniformity  to  prevail 
here  also. 

Finally,  we  must  not  omit  to  point  out  that 
we  learn   nothing  good  otherwise  of  the  alleged 


84    ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT  ? 

authors  of  PC.  The  introduction  of  Deut.  in  the 
year  623  had  not  been  of  the  slightest  assistance  ; 
idolatry  had  been  everywhere  restored  on  the 
high  places  (see  the  frequent  complaints  of 
Jeremiah,  e.g.  iii.  10,  xiii.  27,  xvi.  16,  18,  xvii. 
2  ;  Ez.  vi.  1-6,  xviii.  6,  15,  xx.  30  and  foil., 
esp.  ver.  31).  Nay,  the  temple  itself  could  be 
abandoned  after  the  Reformation  to  the  most 
abominable  idolatry,  as  Ez.  viii.  and  2  Chron. 
xxxvi.  14  attest.  The  priests  must  bear  the 
principal  blame  for  this,  and  we  see  what  godless 
men  they  were  as  they  went  into  exile.  Are  we 
to  suppose  that  they  had  so  much  improved  there 
that  they  were  the  very  persons  who  sought,  even 
though  in  a  mistaken  way,  to  bring  salvation  to 
the  people,  that  they  were  the  very  persons  who 
were  so  anxious  to  lay  down  new  religious 
principles?  That  would  Hkely  be  in  itself  im- 
possible ;  but  we  can  prove  the  contrary.  In  the 
year  538,  according  to  Ezra  ii.  36-38,  4289 
priests  returned,  whilst  on  the  second  return 
doubtless  only  individual  priests  came  back.  The 
bulk  of  the  priests  had  therefore  been  in  their 
native  land  since  538.  Whether  we  place 
Malachi  shortly  before  or  after  444,  this  much  at 
least  is  clear  from  that  prophet,  that  the  priests 
in  Jerusalem  were  not  at  all  concerned  about  the 
exact  Levitical  fulfilment  of  the  laws  relating  to 
sacrifice.     They  bring  without  scruple  blind,  lame, 


PRIESTS  NOT  AUTHORS        85 

or  sick  animals  as  an  ofifering — which  was  for- 
bidden not  only  in  Lev.  xxii.  17  and  foil.,  but  also 
already  in  Deut.  (see  xv.  21,  xvii.  i).  They  have 
no  reverence  for  Jahwe,  they  neglect  right  instruc- 
tion, they  observe  abominable  feasts,  they  are  not 
satisfied  with  what  was  prescribed  to  them  by  Jahwe 
as  an  acceptable  offering  (see  Mai.  i.  6  to  ii.  9,  iii.  3). 
These  then  are  the  persons  who  are  alleged 
to  have  co-operated  in  the  exile  in  producing 
PC,  to  have  had  a  special  interest  in  the 
painfully  strict  observance  of  a  sacrificial  ritual, 
and  with  whose  consent  PC  either  had  been 
already  or  was  now  introduced.  Who  can 
believe  this  ?  If  Malachi  should  be  placed  even 
before  458,  what  right  have  we  to  assume  that 
their  brothers  still  in  exile  were  so  much  better 
than  they,  especially  when,  according  to  Well- 
hausen,  they  were  in  the  most  active  intercourse 
with  one  another?  When  Wellhausen  (p.  412) 
says,  "  After  the  temple  was  restored,  the 
theoretical  zeal  was  still  maintained,  and  in  co- 
operation with  the  renewed  practice  completed 
the  ritual  still  further ;  the  priests  who  remained 
in  Babylon  took,  from  a  distance,  no  less  interest 
in  the  sacred  worship  than  their  brothers  at 
Jerusalem  who  were  occupied  with  carrying  it  out, 
who,  living  amid  adverse  surroundings,  do  not 
seem  to  have  kept  so  strictly  to  the  laborious 
fulfilment  of  the  appointed  observances,"  he  undoes 


86    ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

by  the  last  relative  clause  all  that  he  had 
previously  said,  and  shows  how  his  whole  hy- 
pothesis is  not  merely  composed  of  airy  nothings, 
but  is  in  contradiction  to  the  actual  circumstances. 
According  to  Malachi,  it  may  be  even  more 
decidedly  said  that  the  Jerusalem  priests  not  only 
do  not  seem  to  have  kept  less  strictly  to  the 
laborious  fulfilment  of  the  appointed  observances, 
but  that  they  violated  them  in  the  grossest 
manner,  and  that  too  from  want  of  reverence  for 
Jahwe  (see  Mai.  i.  6),  not  because  of  "  adverse 
surroundings,"  but  out  of  pure  egotism.  These 
are  the  facts.  Among  such  a  priesthood  the 
zeal  for  godliness  which  must  be  and  is  ascribed 
to  the  authors  of  PC  is  incomprehensible ;  we 
could  only  credit  them  with  those  sections  of  PC 
in  which  they  might  have  secured  to  themselves  a 
good  source  of  income  by  the  tithes — which,  in 
contrast  with  earlier  times,  were  vastly  increasing 
— but  never  with  those  in  which  a  painfully  exact 
observance  of  ritual  is  demanded  of  them. 

To  sum  up,  it  seems  to  me  incredible  that 
several  persons  worked  at  PC  and  that  nothing 
of  their  work  came  to  light ;  that  an  agreement 
prevailed  in  the  cardinal  points,  whereas  no  unity 
was  attained  in  smaller  matters ;  that  a  great  system 
was  elaborated,  and  yet  at  the  same  time  that  so 
much  in  form  and  contents  contradicted  the  system ; 
and  that,  finally,  persons  should  have  constructed 


DETAILS  ABOUT  TABERNACLE  87 

PC  whose  hostility  to  such  enactments  can  be 
proved,  in  whom  all  religious  interest  was  lacking, 
and  who  dared  expressly  to  set  themselves  against 
the  commands  of  God. 


6.   Let  us  turn,  finally,  to  particular  enachnents  Many 
of  PC,  the  origin  of  which  remains   unexplained  enact- 
under  the  modern  theory,  because  they  would  not  pc^are°iii- 
be  in  any  harmony  with  the  purposed  attempt  at  explicable 
reformation.     To  these  we  shall  add  such  as  are  modem 
in  direct  contradiction  to  the  circumstances  of  the 
exilic  or  post-exilic  period,  and  lastly  such  as  one 
would  have  necessarily  expected  in  a  ritual  legis- 
lation of  that  time,  but  which  are  lacking. 

The  first-named  laws  would  be  at  least  super- 
fluous and  scarcely  intelligible  in  a  programme 
which  was  to  be  translated  into  practice.  We 
have  already  mentioned  above  that  it  would  have 
been  the  height  of  folly  for  the  authors  of  PC  to 
clothe  the  system  in  Mosaic  dress,  and  in  particular 
to  invent  the  tabernacle  at  all  (see  §  3).  Even, 
however,  though  it  might  be  foolish,  the  idea 
might  be  explained  by  the  hope  of  giving  greater 
sanction  and  higher  authority  by  means  of  this 
dress  to  the  law  about  to  be  introduced.  But 
what  reason  can  be  alleged  for  the  fact  that,  even 
to  the  minutest  detail,  the  material,  number, 
measure,  and  colour  of  the  various  parts  are 
stated    (see    Ex.    xxvi.    1-37)?       The    more    the 


88    ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

legislation  is  supposed  to  appear  as  a  programme, 
the  more  unintelligible  would  be  this  aimless  fancy 
for  construction,  especially  as  it  was  not  intended 
to  build  the  tabernacle  itself.  If  it  is  alleged  that 
Solomon's  temple  had  to  be  copied  and  dated 
back  to  the  time  of  Moses,  in  the  first  place  there 
is  not  the  slightest  hint  of  this  ;  nay,  it  is  even 
excluded,  because  the  tabernacle  appeared  with 
the  claim  of  permanent  existence  (see  Lev.  xvii. 
1-7,  esp.  ver.  7).  What,  moreover,  would  then  be 
the  meaning  of  the  innumerable  divergences  in 
measurements  (it  is  not  at  all  the  case  that  the 
tabernacle  always  had  exactly  the  half  measure- 
ments of  the  temple),  in  form  (in  the  temple  a 
porch  and  two  outer  courts,  in  the  tabernacle  one 
outer  court),  and  in  the  decoration  ?  Why  is  the 
expression  for  the  holy  of  holies  i"*!'^  (the  oracle) 
which  appears  so  often  in  the  case  of  the  temple 
(see  I  Kings  vi.  5,  16,  19-23,  31,  vii.  49,  viii.  6) 
avoided  ?  ^  Why  in  place  of  the  ten  lamps  of  the 
temple  does  only  one  appear?  All  this  would 
remain  unintelligible,  if  it  had  been  intended  to 
pre-figure  the  temple  in  the  time  of  Moses. 

What,  besides,  is  the  meaning  of  a  law  like 
Num.  iv.,  in  which  the  mode  of  transporting  the 
various  portions  is  exactly  laid  down,  and  what 

1  The  friend  mentioned  in  a  previous  note  says  here :  "Its  use 
in  2  Chron.  iii.  16,  iv.  20,  v.  7,  9,  and  in  Ps.  xxviii.  2  marks  its 
absence  in  PC  still  more  strongly." — Trans. 


MEANINGLESS  ENACTMENTS    89 

Levites  are  to  carry  them  ?  How  could  this  duty- 
be  assigned  strictly  to  the  Levites — a  duty  which 
they  no  longer  had  after  the  exile,  whilst  elsewhere 
the  service  of  the  tabernacle  is  quite  generally 
stated  (comp.  Num.  xviii.  2,  4,  6),  though  it 
should  have  been  more  minutely  laid  down,  since 
it  was  to  be  henceforth  attended  to  ? 

Why  did  PC  assume  the  numbers  of  the  first- 
born (22,273)  ^T^^  of  the  Levites  (22,000)  in 
Num.  iii.  as  not  easily  agreeing,  so  that  only  with 
difficulty  it  could  arrange  the  correct  proportion  ? 

The  law  of  Lev.  xvii.  i  -9,  where  it  is  laid  down 
that  every  animal  for  sacrifice  must  only  be  killed 
at  the  central  sanctuary,  would  be  impracticable 
and  unintelligible  at  any  other  time  than  that  of 
the  wanderings  in  the  wilderness,  whereas  PC 
wanted  to  translate  it  into  practice. 

What  could  be  the  meaning,  after  the  exile,  of 
the  law  of  Num.  xxxiii.  51-56,  relating  to  the 
extermination  of  the  Canaanites  who  had  long 
ceased  to  be  in  the  land  ? 

What,  just  at  that  time,  could  be  the  meaning 
of  the  list  of  encampments  in  Num.  xxxiii.  ? 

What  could  be  the  meaning  of  the  bold  enact- 
ment about  the  land,  its  allotment,  the  distribution 
of  the  cities  of  the  Levites,  and  the  other  agrarian 
laws  ?  How  is  it  appropriate  to  the  time  of  the 
exile  that  the  existence  and  the  unmixed  condition 
of  the  twelve  (or  thirteen)  tribes  should  be  assumed, 


90    ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

whereas,  in]  fact,  the  northern  kingdom  had  then 
ceased  to  exist  at  all,  and  its  remaining  inhabitants 
had  mingled  with  the  settlers  who  had  been  im- 
ported ?  All  the  laws  which  refer  to  this  ^  have 
not  the  slightest  relation  to  the  actual  programme, 
and  could  only  be  explained  on  the  ground  that, 
as  is  alleged  in  the  case  of  Deut.,  there  was  an 
attempt  to  make  the  Mosaic  authorship  credible 
in  a  quite  artificial  way.  But  the  authors  would 
then  have  gone  so  far  in  this  effort  that,  by  the 
law  of  Lev.  xvii.  1-9,  which  Wellhausen  himself 
(p.  5  2)  pronounces  "  impracticable,"  they  would 
have  rendered  it  impossible  to  carry  out  those 
laws  about  which  the  authors  of  PC,  with  their 
programme,  were  specially  anxious  (see  above, 
under  §  3,  what  is  stated  about  the  tabernacle  and 
the  Day  of  Atonement).  This  seems  to  me 
scarcely  credible. 

Let  us  turn  to  those  enactments  of  PC  which 
are  in  direct  contradiction  to  the  time  assigned 
by  criticism  to  the  Priestly  Code,  and  therefore 
alone  make  the  Graf- Wellhausen  hypothesis  quite 
impossible. 

How  could  the  Urim  and  Thummim  be  con- 

1  Comp.,  for  example,  the  year  of  Jubilee  and  the  law  of 
daughters'  inheritance,  Lev.  xxv.  and  Num.  xxxvi.  ;  regulations 
about  the  Levites  and  the  cities  of  refuge,  Num.  xxxv.  1-8,  9-15; 
about  the  boundaries  of  the  land  and  the  men  who  shall  divide  the 
land,  Num.  xxxiv.  ;  and  about  the  distribution  of  Canaan  to  the 
particular  tribes  to  be  completed  by  lot,  Num.  xxvi.  52-56  (comp. 
Kohler,  as  above,  p.  527,  note  2). 


LAWS  CONTRADICT  DATE     91 

sidered  part  of  the  complete  dress  of  the  high- 
priest,  when  they  had  been  lost  after  the  exile 
(comp.  Ezra  ii.  63,  Neh.  vii.  65  with  Ex.  xxviii.  30)? 

How  can  PC  prescribe  the  anointing  for  the  high- 
priest  (Ex.  xxix.  7  ;  Lev.  viii.  12,  xxi.  10),  which 
according  to  tradition  was  not  carried  out  in  the 
post-exilic  time  (comp.  Riehm's  Handworterbuch 
article  "  Hohepriester  ")  ? 

How  could  the  age  of  service  for  the  Levites 
be  reckoned  from  thirty  (Num.  iv.  3)  or  twenty- 
five  years  (Num.  viii.  23-26),  when  it  clearly  began 
after  the  exile  at  twenty  years  of  age  (comp.  Ezra 
iii.  8)  ?  1 

Many  of  the  more  recent  critics  think  that  the 
continual  offering  (Heb.  Tamid),  according  to 
Neh.  x.  33,  consisted  in  the  morning  of  a  burnt 
offering  and  in  the  evening  only  of  a  meat  offering, 
which  they  try  to  make  probable  by  a  comparison 
with  the  passages  2  Kings  xvi.  15,  Ezra  ix.  4 
(comp.  also  Ez.  xlvi.  13  and  foil.).  How  then 
could  P  in  Ex.  xxix.  38  and  foil,  require  the 
burnt  offerings  morning  and  evening  ? 

How  could  P  require  the  Passover  to  be  on 
the    14th    day   of    Nisan    in    the   evening  in  the 

^  There  is  here,  it  may  be  remarked,  a  notable  confirmation  of 
the  historicity  of  Chronicles  (comp.  i  Chron.  xxiii.  24  and  foil.  ;  2 
Chron.  xxxi.  17,  where  that  alteration  of  PC  is  attributed  to  David). 
How  could  the  chronicler  have  come  to  alter  P  without  historical 
authority,  seeing  that  he  otherwise  keeps  carefully  to  its  fulfilment 
and  writes  in  its  spirit  ? 


92    ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

houses,  but  the  Feast  of  Unleavened  Bread  on  the 
15  th  in  the  central  sanctuary  (comp.  Ex.  xii. ; 
Lev.  xxiii.  5  and  foil. ;  Num.  xxviii.  1 6  and  foil.)  ? 
This  was  absolutely  impracticable  for  the  time 
after  the  wanderings.  This  law  also  is  only 
intelligible,  therefore,  for  the  period  of  wandering 
in  the  wilderness.  When  the  chronicler  speaks 
of  observances  of  the  Passover  (2  Chron.  xxx.  5, 
XXXV.  I  and  foil.),  he  presupposes  the  Deutero- 
nomic  injunction,  according  to  which  even  the 
Passover  was  to  be  celebrated  In  the  holy  place. 
Inasmuch  as  the  chronicler  otherwise  always 
follows  P,  we  must  assume  that  in  his  time  not 
P  but  Deut.  was  obeyed  on  this  point. 

How  could  half  a  shekel  be  fixed  in  P  as  an 
offering  unto  the  Lord  (Ex.  xxx.  1 1  and  foil.) 
whilst  after  the  exile  only  a  third  was  required 
(Neh.  X.  32)? 

Here  too  we  recall  once  more  the  fact  that  the 
post-exilic  time  knows  nothing  of  a  tabernacle 
and  an  ark  of  the  covenant. 

In  short,  we  see  that  the  enactments  cited 
must  have  been  otherwise  stated  if  PC  had 
originated  in  the  exilic  and  post-exilic  period. 

How  little  P  is  suited  to  the  time  to  which  it 
is  assigned  is  clear,  finally,  from  the  fact  that  we 
do  not  find  in  it  quite  a  number  of  laws  which  we 
should  expect. 


PERSONS  NOT  MENTIONED     93 

It  is  well  known  what  a  part  the  temple 
music  plays  after  the  exile.  As  early  as  Ezra  ii. 
41  and  Neh.  vii.  44  "the  singers"  are  mentioned 
among  those  who  returned  in  the  year  538. 
The  personnel  of  those  serving  in  the  temple  in 
the  post-exilic  time  appears  to  be  very  fully 
analysed  ;  mention  is  made  not  only  of  priests 
and  Levites,  but  also  of  door-keepers  [porters], 
temple  -  servants  [Nethinim],  and  children  of 
Solomon's  servants  (Ez.  \\.^  Neh.  vii.).  We  ask, 
in  the  first  place,  how  was  this  full  classification 
possible,  if  it  had  not  already  existed  before  the 
exile  ?  The  exile,  during  which  the  temple 
worship  had  to  cease,  was  certainly  quite  un- 
adapted  to  call  it  into  existence,  apart  altogether 
from  the  fact  that  it  appears  in  Ezra  ii.,  vii.  7, 
24,  viii.  17,  x.  23  and  foil.,  and  Neh.  vii.,  not 
as  something  new,  but  as  something  well  known 
and  self-evident.^  But,  putting  this  aside  and 
proceeding  simply  from  the  actual  state  of  things 
in  the  post-exilic  time,  how  was  it  possible  for  P  to 
leave  these  people  quite  unnoticed  ?  It  was  surely 
only  consistent  to  date  from  Mosaic  times  these 
various  positions  which  were  allowed  to  exist,  and 
to  assign  to  their  occupants  their  definite  duties 
and  their  revenues  (comp.  Neh.  xii.  47). 

^  Still  another  contiimation  of  the  historical  value  of  Chronicles, 
which  attributes  this  division  of  duties  to  David  ( i  Chron.  xxv.  and 
foil.). 


94    ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

Why,  again,  is  the  enactment  mentioned  in 
Neh.  xii.  44  and  foil.,  and  xiii.  10,  that  chambers 
should  be  provided  as  treasuries  for  the  portions 
of  the  priests  and  Levites,  and  men  appointed  for 
the  oversight  of  them,  omitted  in  P  ? 

In  Neh.  x.  35,  xiii.  31,  regular  supplies  of 
wood  for  the  holy  place  are  mentioned  and 
required,  of  which  there  is  not  a  trace  to  be  found 
in  P.  How  they  could  have  escaped  notice 
remains  unexplained  under  the  modern  theory. 

Finally,  it  is  v/ell  known  how  in  the  post- 
exilic  time  the  marriages  with  heathen  peoples 
had  to  be  abolished  (Ezra  ix.  and  foil. ;  Neh.  xiii. 
23  and  foil.,  30;  Mai.  ii.  10  and  foil),  and  how 
much  trouble  it  cost.  How  could  P  omit  a  law 
referring  to  this  ? 

Were  we  to  proceed  on  parallel  lines  to  the 
foregoing  inquiry,  we  should  here  allude  to  the 
fairly  numerous  traces  of  PC  which  are  found 
before  444,  and  this  too  in  the  historical  books, 
in  Ezekiel  and  in  Deut.  But  we  shall  better 
deal  with  them  in  the  later  sections,  and  here 
only  indicate  them. 

A  pious  By   way   of  appendix   it   may  here    be    once 

once  more,  more  expressly  noticed  that,  if  the  Graf-Wellhausen 
hypothesis  be  accepted,  it  is  impossible  to  elimi- 
nate the  pia  fraus.     Here,  too,  the  Mosaic  dress 


A  PIOUS  FRAUD  ONCE  MORE  95 

is  not  merely  a  matter  of  indifference  for  the 
success  of  the  introduction  of  PC,  but  decisive. 
Here,  too,  the  deception  would  be  as  subtle  as 
possible,  nay,  the  priests  would  have  gone  so  far 
in  it  that  by  the  Mosaic  dress  they  would  have 
really  made  the  carrying  out  of  their  programme 
impossible  from  the  first  (comp.  §§  3,  4,  and  6). 
We  can  only  repeat  here  what  we  demonstrated 
in  the  appendix  to  the  previous  section  (pp. 
50-52),  and  find  it  incomprehensible  how  the 
disguise  of  PC  can  be  placed  on  a  level  with 
that  of  the  Preacher  (comp.  Kautzsch,  p.  168). 
Besides,  in  the  case  of  PC  there  would  be  this 
element  of  added  difficulty,  that  the  priests  would 
not  have  acted  exactly  unselfishly  in  their  work, 
since  they  would  have  increased  immeasurably 
the  revenues  which  hitherto  accrued  to  them. 
But  we  shall  have  still  to  deal  with  one  point, 
namely,  the  proof  of  the  position  of  the  Levites 
in  PC  in  contradiction  to  Ezekiel,  and  to  show 
that  this  can  only  be  regarded  as  a  fraud  in  the 
worst  sense  of  the  word. 

To  sum  up  the  result  of  our  inquiry.  The  Summary, 
narrative  of  Neh.  viii.-x.  showed  us  that  Well- 
hausen  is  right  when  he  considers  that  the  whole 
Pentateuch,  and  not  merely  PC,  was  published  on 
that  occasion.  But  his  hypothesis  is  then  impos- 
sible from  the  start,  and  is  at  the  moment  hardly 


96    ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT  ? 

shared  by  others  ;  it  breaks  down  especially  on 
the  reconciliation  with  the  Books  of  the  Covenant 
and  Deut  On  the  other  hand,  the  now  almost 
universal  view  of  the  modern  hypothesis,  according 
to  which  it  is  only  PC  that  is  made  known  in 
Neh.  viii.-x.,  has  the  narrative — recognised  by 
criticism  itself  as  "  original " — against  it,  but  apart 
from  this  it  breaks  down  on  the  existence  of  the 
Books  of  the  Covenant  and  Deut.  (comp.  §  i). 
Section  2  showed  us  that  the  authors  of  PC, 
according  to  criticism,  had  not  a  historical 
purpose  in  view,  and  therefore  did  not  merely 
codify  the  use  and  wont,  but  that  they  put  forward 
a  programme  by  the  carrying  out  of  which  the 
people  were  to  be  saved  from  the  future  chastise- 
ments by  their  God.  But  the  priests  could  not 
hope  from  the  course  of  history  that  anything 
would  be  effected  by  the  outward  observance  of 
ritual.  In  any  case,  however,  they  would  not 
then  have  ventured  to  choose  the  Mosaic  garb, 
because  their  law  was  in  opposition  to  what  was 
hitherto  regarded  as  Mosaic,  and  because  by 
choosing  that  form  of  dress  for  PC  they  would 
have  made  the  practical  introduction  of  the 
latter  a  priori  illusory  (§  3).  If  nevertheless  they 
had  chosen  this  form,  the  result  would  be  quite 
unintelligible ;  the  people  would  have  allowed 
themselves  to  be  deceived,  although  the  legislation 
must  have  been  in  the  highest  degree  uncongenial 


A  CHIMERA  97 

to  them,  and  yet  they  would  not  have  accepted  PC 
blindly,  but  in  a  form  more  suited  to  the  time  (§  4). 

Further,  we  could  not  conceive  how  the 
authors  could  be  at  once  genial  and  narrow- 
minded  (§  3),  at  once  interested  and  callous  in 
religious  matters,  at  once  systematic  and  unsys- 
tematic Kar  i^o^rjv,  as  we  would  have  to  assume 
throughout  on  the  modern  hypothesis ;  and 
similarly,  how  so  many  were  engaged  in  the  work 
and  yet  nothing  came  to  light  (§  5).  We  add 
that  quite  a  multitude  of  laws  cannot  be  explained 
by  the  programme,  that  many  are  in  contradiction 
to  the  time  of  the  exile,  that  others  are  lacking 
which  were  to  be  expected  at  that  time  ;  and 
that  for  the  explanation  of  all  these  phenomena 
the  Mosaic  disguise  is  utterly  inadequate  (§  6). 
Taking  all  in  all,  we  can  no  longjr  have  any 
doubt  that  the  modern  view  is  a  chimera,  a 
monstrosity.  P  can  no  more  have  originated  in 
the  sixth  or  the  fifth  century  than  Deut.  in  the 
seventh,  and  thus  the  apparently  harmonious 
correspondence  between  law  and  history  is  for 
the  second  time  proved  to  be  an  error. 

As  for  the  criticism  of  the  critical  methods  of 
the  modern  Old  Testament  scholars,  the  following 
points  were  to  be  noted  : — 

{a)  If  we  assume  with  Wellhausen  that  the 
whole  Pentateuch  was  promulgated  on  the  occasion 
described  in  Neh.  viii.-x.,  and  that  thus  something 

H 


98    ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT  ? 

essentially  new  was  enjoined  upon  the  people,  it 
follows  that  E  and  J  and  D  could  become  un- 
known, although  their  existence  for  centuries 
previous  is  admitted  even  by  the  critics.  Nothing 
can  therefore  be  deduced  against  the  previous 
existence  of  a  law  from  the  fact  of  its  being  un- 
known at  a  particular  time  (§  i). 

(J?)  If  we  assume  with  Kautzsch,  and  most  of 
the  other  modern  critics,  that  in  Neh.  viii.-x.  only 
PC  was  published,  then  our  whole  argument  and 
the  analogous  fate  of  Deut.  and  the  Books 
of  the  Covenant  in  the  year  623  show  that 
nothing  must  be  inferred  against  the  previous 
existence  of  a  law  from  the  fact  of  its  being  un- 
known at  a  particular  time  (§  i). 

Finally,  we  believe  that  many  of  the  difficulties 
which  have  been  discussed  exist  not  only  for  the 
modern  conception,  but  for  every  view  which  does 
not  proceed  from  the  assumption  that  at  least  the 
kernel  of  this  ritual  legislation  goes  back  in  reality 
to  Moses  ;  in  this  we  express  no  opinion  on  the 
question  whether  the  laws  must  have  been  all 
codified  in  the  time  of  Moses,  or  whether  laws,  in 
accordance  with  changes  in  the  practice,  may  not 
have  been  added  on  to  this  kernel.  This  would 
have  to  be  discussed  by  exhaustive  inquiries, 
although  I  am  of  opinion  that  on  this  point  we 
shall  never  be  able  to  get  beyond  subjective  con- 
jectures.    At  any  rate,  so  far  as  I  can  see,  every 


CRITICISM  TESTED  99 

view  must  break    down   which  does  not  at  least 
regard  the  kernel  of  PC  as  Mosaic  (§§  i,  3,  4,  5,  6). 

B.  Criticism  of  the  Modern  Auxiliary 
Hypotheses 

After  we  have  shown  the  untenableness  of  the 
modern  dating  of  PC,  there  remains  for  us  the 
criticism  of  the  most  important  auxiliary  hypotheses 
which  are  supposed  to  render  that  date  necessary. 
We  are  less  concerned  in  this  discussion  to  meet 
the  objections  to  the  Biblical  view,  though  we 
shall  give  suggestions  as  to  how,  in  our  view,  they 
are  to  be  overcome.  Our  chief  desire  is  here  also 
to  bring  criticism  to  bear  on  Criticism,  and  to 
show  how  arbitrary  its  canons  of  criticism  are, 
and  how  by  a  logical  following-out  of  them  quite 
different  results  must  be  arrived  at.  We  have 
already  given  some  samples  in  the  preceding  dis- 
cussions (see  pp.  7,  41,  54,  97).  We  shall  here  deal 
in  sequence  with  the  relation  in  which  the  prophets 
in  general,  Ezekiel  xl.-xlviii.  in  particular,  and  the 
history  down  to  444,  stand  to  PC.  The  sequence, 
which  might  appear  arbitrary,  has  been  determined 
by  the  influence  which  the  different  arguments  of 
criticism  once  produced  upon  myself. 

(a)  It  was  passages  like  Amos  v.  2 1  and  foil.,  iv.  The  rela- 
4  and  foil.  ;   Hos.  vi.  6  ;   Mic.  vi.  6  and  foil.  ;   Is.  i.  prophets 
II    and  foil.  ;  Jer.  vi.  20,  vii.  21  and  foil  ;  Ps.  xl.  p^^^g^jy 
7,  1.  9,  li.  1 8  and  foil,  which   first  convinced  me  C®^®- 


UNlVERSiTY  OF  REDLANDS  LIBRARY 
100  ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

of  the  incontestable  correctness  of  the  Wellhausen 
hypothesis.  They  seem  quite  clearly  to  show  it 
to  be  impossible  that  the  prophets,  with  such  a 
polemic  against  sacrifice,  could  have  been  ac- 
quainted with  an  ordinance  of  sacrifices  going 
back  to  Moses.  PC  therefore,  as  it  seems,  must 
have  originated  after  those  passages.  Later,  I 
became  convinced  of  the  error  of  this  conclusion. 

I  do  not  propose  to  give  a  thorough  exegesis 
of  the  passages  in  question,  which  in  part  are  on 
exegetical  grounds  specially  difficult,  in  order  not 
to  produce  the  impression  that  the  correctness  of 
the  view  stated  depends  upon  this,  an  impression 
by  which  Bredenkamp,  for  example,  does  much 
harm.  We  shall,  on  the  contrary,  do  well  to  treat 
these  passages  at  first  as  critically  as  possible. 
Even  then,  nay,  just  because  of  this,  we  shall  be 
in  a  position  to  show  that  this  argument  proves  a 
great  deal  too  much,  and  therefore  nothing  at  all. 


Does  Jer.  I .  Let  US  commence  with  the  passage  Jer.  vii.  2 1 

foil,  prove  and  foil.,  and  let  us  assume  with  modern  criticism 
coui/not  ^^^^  ^^^  expression  in  ver.  22  Dnhw   ^«^shn  DV21. 

have  D^*iSO    I>"iNO  is  not  to  be  pressed  so  as  only  to  be 

existed  • '  •  '      '  • 

in  Jere-     understood  of  the  mom„ent  of  the  departure  from 

t?me  ?^       Egypt ;  let  us  further  assume  that  in  the  same  verse 

rhy^  ^11*7-^2?  ni)^  does  not  mean  "  by  reason  of 

burnt    offerings    or    sacrifices,"    but    "  concerning 

burnt  offerings  or  sacrifices,"  the  passage  would 


ARGUMENT  FROM  JER.  V5I.  21  Iftl 

expressly  state  that  God  had  given  in  Mosaic 
times  no  instructions  and  commands  relating  to 
sacrifices  at  all.  Because  this  is  diametrically 
opposed  to  PC,  it  is  argued  that  PC  could  not 
yet  have  existed  in  the  time  of  Jeremiah,  and  the 
positive  testimony  of  that  prophet  is  maintained 
to  be  in  favour  of  this  view.  But  if  we  were 
really  to  draw  this  conclusion  from  the  particular 
fact,  we  should  actually  infer  a  great  deal  too 
much.  The  Books  of  the  Covenant  and  Deut. 
could  then  just  as  little  have  existed  at  the  time 
of  Jeremiah ;  for  both,  even  according  to  the 
critics,  were  then  regarded  as  Mosaic  and  both 
speak  of  sacrifice,  especially  the  first  Luck  of  the 
Covenant,  in  the  passage  otherwise  so  rc^"'ily 
used  by  the  critics,  Ex.  xx.  24,  "  An  altar  of 
earth  shalt  thou  make  unto  me  and  shalt  sacrifice 
thereon  thy  burnt  offerings  and  thy  peace  offerings^ 
thy  sheep  and  thine  oxen  ;  in  all  places  where  I 
record  my  name  I  will  come  unto  thee,  and  I 
will  bless  thee."  ^  Comp.  further  Ex.  xxii.  20, 
"  He  that  sacrificeth  unto  any  god,  save  unto  the 
Lord  only,  he  shall  surely  be  put  to  death  "  ;  Ex. 
xxiii.    1 8,2  "  Thou    shalt   not   offer   the   blood   of 

^  Kautzsch's  translation  *'  in  all  places  which  I  shall  appoint  that 
men  may  worship  me  there  "  gives  to  the  Hiphil  of  idi  a  meaning 
which  it  nowhere  else  possesses. 

"^  According  to  Cornill,  p.  29,  from  E  without  being  edited,  in 
opposition  to  the  new  translation,  which  assigns  vers.  14-19  to  the 
redactor.  Even  Wellhausen,  in  his  treatment  of  the  Feasts, 
proceeds  on  the  assumption  that  this  section  is  older  than  Deut. 


ijp?  ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

my  sacrifice  with  leavened  bread  ;  neither  shall 
the  fat  of  my  sacrifice  remain  until  the  morning  "  ; 
xxxiv.  25,  "  Thou  shalt  not  offer  the  blood  of  my 
sacrifice  with  leaven  ;  neither  shall  the  sacrifice  of 
the  feast  of  the  passover  be  left  until  the  morning." 
According  to  the  Books  of  the  Covenant,  there- 
fore, God  certainly  spoke  of  sacrifice  in  the  time 
of  Moses,  and  yet  Jeremiah  would  dispute  the 
fact  that  God  stated  and  appointed  anything  con- 
cerning sacrifices  in  the  Mosaic  period.  One  of 
two  alternatives  is  only  possible  here.  Either  we 
are  to  regard  this  contradic^'^n  as  so  strong  that 
we  shall  also  ^^nsider  the  existence  and  Mosaic 
authority  of  the  Books  of  the  Covenant  quite  as 
irTipbssible  in  the  time  of  Jeremiah  as  that  of  P, 
or  we  are  to  admit  that  P,  notwithstanding  the 
passage  from  Jeremiah,  could  already  exist  as  a 
Mosaic  law  quite  as  well  as  the  Books  of  the 
Covenant.  The  procedure  of  modern  criticism  is, 
on  the  contrary,  arbitrary  and  inconsistent.  If, 
however,  it  should  say  that  there  is  a  difference 
between  P  and  the  Books  of  the  Covenant,  it  must 
be  retorted  that  this  actual  difference  is  only  one 
of  quantity,  inasmuch  as  P  certainly  contains 
more  instructions  about  sacrifice  ;  but  that  in  the 
main  discussion  as  to  the  relation  of  the  prophets 
to  sacrifice,  the  question  at  issue  is  not  whether 
there  were  many  sacrifices  or  few,  but  whether  or 
not  there  were  any  sacrifices  at  all.      And  in  the 


ARGUMENT  APPLIED  TO  DEUT.103 

modern  exegesis  of  Jer.  vii.  22,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  any  divine  appointment  of  sacrifices  in 
Mosaic  times  is  disputed. 

The  case  for  Deut.  is  exactly  similar  to 
that  for  the  Books  of  the  Covenant.  Accord- 
ing to  the  usual  assigning  of  the  7th  chapter 
of  Jeremiah  to  the  year  608,^  Deut,  in  the 
opinion  of  the  critics,  was  already  introduced 
as  Mosaic  fifteen  years  before,  and  since  then 
recognised  as  such.  Now  Deut.  speaks  of 
sacrifices  much  more  frequently  than  the  Books 
of  the  Covenant ;  we  quote  the  following  passages  : 
xii.  5  and  foil.,  "  But  unto  the  place  which  the 
Lord  your  God  shall  choose  out  of  all  your  tribes 
to  put  his  name  there,  even  unto  his  habitation 
shall  ye  seek  and  thither  shall  ye  come ;  and 
thither  ye  shall  bring  your  burnt  offerings  and 
your  sacrifices,  and  your  tithes,  and  heave  offerings 
of  your  hand,  .  .  .  and  all  your  choice  vows 
which  ye  vow  unto  the  Lord "  ;  xii.  1 3,  "  Take 
heed  to  thyself  that  thou  offer  not  thy  burnt  offer- 
ings in  every  place  that  thou  seest :  but  in  the 
place  which  the  Lord  shall  choose  in  one  of  thy 
tribes,  there  thou  shalt  offer  thy  hirnt  offerings^ 
and  there  thou  shalt  do  all  that  I  command  thee  "  ; 
xii.    17,  "Thou   mayest   not  eat  within  thy  gates 

^  Comp.  with  this  chap,  xxvi.,  where  the  historical  setting  is 
prefixed  to  the  speech  given  in  chap.  vii.  ;  so  also  Kautzsch.  See 
also  the  note  on  p.  23. 


104  ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

the  tithe  of  thy  corn,  or  of  thy  wine,  or  of  thy  oil, 
or  the  firstlings  of  thy  herds  or  of  thy  flock,  nor 
any  of  thy  vows  which  thou  vowest,  nor  thy  free- 
will offerings,  or  heave  offering  of  thine  hand, 
but  thou  must  eat  them  before  the  Lord  thy 
God,"  etc.  ;  xii.  26,  "  Only  thy  holy  things 
which  thou  hast,  and  thy  vows,  thou  shalt  take, 
and  go  unto  the  place  which  the  Lord  shall 
choose,  and  thou  shalt  offer  thy  burnt  offerings, 
the  flesh  and  the  blood,  upon  the  altar  of  the 
Lord  thy  God ;  and  the  blood  of  thy  sacrifices 
shall  be  poured  out  upon  the  altar  of  the  Lord 
thy  God,  and  thou  shalt  eat  the  flesh."  Comp. 
further  Deut.  xv.  19-23 ;  xvi.  2,  5  and  foil.;  xvii.  i ; 
xviii.  I,  3.  Here  it  is  even  clearer  than  before 
that,  according  to  Deut,  God  had  given  com- 
mands and  instructions  in  reference  to  sacrifices 
and  burnt  offerings  in  the  time  of  Moses  before 
the  entrance  into  the  Holy  Land,  and  yet 
Jeremiah  could  utter  the  expression  in  chap.  vii. 
22.  So  there  only  remains  here  also  the  above- 
mentioned  alternative. 

Jer.  vii.  2 1  and  foil,  is  undoubtedly  the 
passage  which  speaks  most  sharply  against 
sacrifices.  If  it  proves  nothing,  much  more  is 
this  true  of  the  other  passages,  even  of  Amos  v. 
21  and  foil,  (see  especially  ver.  25,  "Have  ye 
offered  unto  me  sacrifices  and  offerings  in  the 
wilderness  forty  years,  O  house  of  Israel  ?  ")  ;  for 


ARGUMENT  FROM  AMOS  V.  25  105 

this  only  establishes  the  fact  that  in  the  time  of 
the  wanderings  in  the  wilderness  (comp.  ii.  lo) 
no  sacrifice  was  offered — which  corresponds  to 
the  hints  which  we  get  elsewhere  about  that 
period  (comp.  Deut.  xii.  8  ;  Ezek.  xx.  ;  Lev.  xvii. 
7).  But  it  is  impossible  that  this  can  prove  any- 
thing against  the  fact  that  sacrifices  were  offered 
before  that  time  (otherwise  JE  must  in  turn  be 
later  than  the  prophetic  writings  ;  comp.  Ex.  xxiv. 
4  and  foil.),  and  that  a  legislation  on  ritual  was 
given  at  Sinai.  All  that  has  been  adduced  above, 
however,  may  be  applied  generally  to  all  these 
passages  about  sacrifice  in  the  prophets  without 
qualification.  For  even  if  Deut.,  according  to 
modern  criticism,  was  not  yet  in  existence  for 
Amos  iv.  and  foil.,  Hos.  vi.,  Mic.  vi..  Is.  i. 
(though  doubtless  for  Jer.  vi.  and  Ps.  xl.,  1.  and 
foil.  !),  yet  it  will  be  at  once  admitted  that  the 
Books  of  the  Covenant  are  older  than  even  the 
oldest  of  the  prophetic  writings.  Thus  what  we 
have  shown  above  is  repeated  here  ;  i.e.  criticism 
admits  that  the  prophets  could  speak  so  sharply 
against  sacrifices,  although  instructions  about 
sacrifice  which  were  regarded  as  Mosaic  existed 
in  their  time,  and  loses  thereby  the  right  of 
denying,  for  the  same  reason,  the  existence  of  P 
at  that  time. 

In  order  that  the  difference  between  P  and  the 
Books  of  the  Covenant  may  not  be  appealed  to, 


106  ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

as  we  have  deprecated  above  (see  p.  102),  we 
may  add  here  the  following  remarks.  Amos  v. 
21  ("I  hate,  I  despise  your  feast  days,  and  I 
will  not  smell  in  your  solemn  assemblies ")  and 
Is.  i.  1 3  and  foil.  ("  new  moons  and  sabbaths,  the 
calling  of  assemblies,  I  cannot  away  with  :  iniquity 
and  solemn  meeting !  Your  new  moons  and 
your  appointed  feasts  my  soul  hateth  ;  they  are 
a  trouble  unto  me  ;  I  am  weary  to  bear  them  ") 
attack  the  feasts  at  least  as  sharply  as  the 
sacrifices  ;  their  opposition  on  this  point  must  of 
course  be  regarded  as  absolute,  if  we  do  so  with 
reference  to  sacrifices.  And  yet  in  the  Books  of 
the  Covenant  the  Sabbath  and  the  three  principal 
feasts  are  enjoined  (comp.  Ex.  xx.  9-1 1  ;  xxiii. 
12,  14-17  ;  xxxiv.  18,  21-24).  We  must  indeed 
regard  it  as  a  quite  incomprehensible  piece  of 
arbitrariness  that  modern  criticism  can  on  this 
ground  dispute  the  existence  of  P  and  admit  the 
existence  of  the  Books  of  the  Covenant,  although 
the  circumstances  were  the  same  for  both. 

Did  the  2.  After  we  have  thus  seen   that  there  is  no 

reaUy^  ^    argument  for  the  Wellhausen  theory,  even  if  the 
hostile^  ^   prophets  had  been  absolutely  hostile  to  the  mode 

attitude     of  worship,  it  still  remains  for  us  to  inquire  if  the 
toward  1         1         -i  •       1 

sacrifice?  prophets  really  assumed  such  a  hostile  attitude  to 

sacrifice.      It  would  indeed  be  at   least  a  subject 

of  wonder  that  they  should   have  put  themselves 


MALACHI  AND  SACRIFICE    107 

in  such  antagonism  to  the  previously-revealed  will 
of  God,  even  though  they  only  found  it  in  the 
Books  of  the  Covenant,  or  in  Deut.,  or  even  in 
P.  But  that  this  is  actually  a  false  conception  is 
seen  by  analogies  to  be  very  probable,  and  may 
on  other  grounds  be  definitely  proved. 

(a)  In  confirmation  of  the  first  assertion,  let  us 
start  with  a  passage  from  the  prophet  Malachi. 
In  chap.  i.  lO  we  read,  "Who  is  there  even 
among  you  that  would  shut  the  doors  for  nought  ? 
Neither  do  ye  kindle  fire  on  mine  altar  for  nought. 
I  have  no  pleasure  in  you,  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts, 
neither  will  I  accept  an  offering  at  your  hand." 
The  value  which  Malachi,  however,  attaches  to 
sacrifice  is  clear  from  other  parts  of  his  book.  In 
the  very  next  verse  we  read,  "  For  from  the  rising 
of  the  sun  even  unto  the  going  down  of  the  same 
my  name  shall  be  great  among  the  Gentiles,  and 
in  every  place  incense  shall  be  offered  unto  my 
name,  and  a  pure  offering " ;  iii.  3  and  foil., 
"  And  he  shall  sit  as  a  refiner  and  purifier  of  silver, 
and  he  shall  purify  the  sons  of  Levi  and  purge 
them  as  gold  and  silver,  that  they  may  offer  unto 
the  Lord  an  offering  in  righteousness.  Then  shall 
the  offering  of  Judah  and  Jerusalem  be  pleasant 
unto  the  Lord  as  in  the  days  of  old,  and  as  in 
former  years."  The  Levitism  of  Malachi  has 
certainly  been  pointed  out,  and  it  has  been  main- 
tained  that    he,    on   this    account,    is    not    to    be 


108  ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

compared  with  the  earlier  prophets.  We  admit 
at  once  that  the  whole  spirit  of  Malachi  is  different 
from  that  of  the  earlier  prophets,  but  just  for  that 
very  reason  we  consider  Malachi  to  be  in  favour 
of  our  view.  For  just  because  the  prophet  adhered 
to  Levitism,  his  rejection  of  sacrifices  in  i.  I  o  is  the 
more  interesting.  If,  notwithstanding  his  prefer- 
ence for  sacrifices,  he  does  not  say,  "  You  must 
not  bring  any  more  defective  animals  for  sacrifices, 
you  must  offer  them  henceforth  in  the  right, 
prescribed  manner,"  but  is  able  to  say,  "  I  will 
have  no  sacrifices  from  you  at  all  under  such 
circumstances,"  it  is  surely  clear  how  hasty  it  is 
to  conclude  from  similar  passages  in  the  older 
prophets  that  the  latter  are  opposed  to  sacrifice  in 
itself.  From  the  passage  in  Malachi  it  follows 
undeniably  that  Jahwe  can  reject  sacrifices  when 
the  right  disposition,  reverence  for  Him,  is  wanting 
(Mai.  i.  6  and  foil.),  and  that  at  the  same  time 
high  value  is  placed  on  sacrifice  (comp.  i.  ii,  iii. 
3  and  foil.). 

Nay,  in  P  itself  there  is  a  passage  (Lev.  xxvi. 
31)  which  plainly  says  that  sacrifice  under  certain 
circumstances  is  of  no  avail.  If,  and  because,  and 
so  long  as,  the  heart  is  uncircumcised  (ver.  41), 
sacrifices  will  not  prevent  banishment.  Even  in 
F,  then,  God  "  will  not  smell  the  savour  of  their 
sweet  odours."  We  should  therefore  have  quite  a 
wrong  conception  of  P  if  we  thought  that  P  shows 


PC  AND  RITUAL  109 

itself  to  be  contented  with  the  mere  ofifering  of 
sacrifice.  No,  there  is  here  plainly  the  pre- 
supposition that  the  right  spirit,  the  circumcised 
heart,  must  be  associated  with  the  sacrifices  if 
Jahwe  is  to  have  pleasure  in  them,  if  He  is  not  to 
lead  His  people  into  exile.  Moreover,  it  must  not 
be  forgotten  that  according  to  PC  it  is  only  sins 
committed  in  ignorance  (comp.  Lev.  iv.  2,  22,27  \ 
V.  15  ;  Num.  xv.  27  and  foil.;  xxxv.  11,  15) 
which  may  be  atoned  for  by  sacrifices.  "  But  the 
soul  that  doeth  aught  presumptuously  (np*!  *t;^), 
whether  he  be  born  in  the  land  or  a  stranger,  the 
same  reproacheth  the  Lord  ;  and  that  soul  shall 
be  cut  off  from  among  his  people.  Because  he 
hath  despised  the  word  of  the  Lord,  and  hath 
broken  his  commandment,  that  soul  shall  be  utterly 
cut  off;  his  iniquity  shall  be  found  upon  him" 
(Num.  XV.  30,  31).  Were  the  prophets  then 
doing  wrong  according  to  the  view  of  PC  when 
they  rejected  the  sacrifices  of  their  fellow-country- 
men ? 

Ezekiel,  according  to  the  modern  view  of  the 
originators  of  Levitism,  might  produce  in  chapters 
xl.-xlviii.  the  same  impression  as  if  he  made  piety 
an  outward  thing  and  confined  it  to  the  painful 
performance  of  ritual,  and  yet  we  should  do  the 
prophet  a  serious  wrong  if  we  thought  that  he 
regarded  the  fulfilment  of  outward  ceremonies  as 
the   essential   thing  in  religion.      Let   it    not   be 


110   ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

forgotten  that  Ezekiel  {e.g.  chap,  xviii.)  demands 
above  all  else  repentance  from  the  sinner,  and 
that  in  chap,  xxxvi.  he  promises  for  the  future  a 
heart  of  flesh  instead  of  a  heart  of  stone  ;  only 
then  will  the  ritual  prescribed  by  him  be  effective. 

From  what  has  been  said  it  follows  that  even 
according  to  P,  Ezekiel  and  Malachi,  sacrifice  has 
only  value  as  an  expression  of  a  corresponding 
spirit,  and  that,  when  this  is  lacking,  sacrifice  alone  is 
of  no  avail,  but  rather  may  be  expressly  rejected. 

If,  then,  no  one  can  go  the  length  of  ascribing 
to  Malachi  on  account  of  Mai.  i.  lO,  or  to  PC  on 
account  of  Lev.  xxvi.  31,  an  attitude  absolutely 
averse  to  sacrifice,  how  can  this  be  attributed, 
without  question,  to  the  pre  -  exilic  prophetic 
writers  ?  Here  also  it  is  clear  by  what  a  different 
standard  things  are  measured  ;  and  this  we  must 
bring  unhesitatingly  to  light. 

(J?)  But  that  the  modern  view  about  the  attitude 
of  the  prophets  to  sacrifice  is  not  merely  incapable 
of  proof  and  improbable,  but  impossible,  is  clear 
from  what  follows.  Even  Jeremiah,  alongside  of 
the  passages  vi.  20  and  vii.  21  and  foil,  predicts 
in  a  way  very  similar  to  Malachi  (iii.  3  and  foil.) 
sacrifices  for  the  future  when  he  writes  (xvii.  26^), 
"  And  they  shall  come  from  the  cities  of  Judah, 
and  from  the  places  about  Jerusalem,  and  from 

1  The  genuineness  of  the  passage  is  recognised  as  probable  in  the 
new  translation. 


JEREMIAH  AND  SACRIFICE    111 

the  land  of  Benjamin,  and  from  the  plain,  and  from 
the  mountains,  and  from  the  south,  bringing 
burnt  offerings,  and  sacrifices,  and  meat  offerings, 
and  incense,  and  bringing  sacrifices  of  praise,  unto 
the  house  of  the  Lord  "  ;  or  xxxi.  14,  "  And  I  will 
satiate  the  soul  of  the  priests  with  fatness,  and  my 
people  shall  be  satisfied  with  my  goodness,  saith 
the  Lord."  We  may  venture  also  to  refer  to  Jer. 
xxxiii.  14  and  foil.,  although  these  verses  are 
lacking  in  the  Septuagint.  Modern  criticism 
itself,  on  account  of  the  Deuteronomic  expression 
in  ver.  1 8  ("  the  priests  the  Levites  "),  cannot  place 
the  date  of  these  verses  farther  down  than  the 
incident  narrated  in  Ez.  xliv.  4  and  foil.  (B.C.  573). 
In  ver.  18,  however,  it  is  said  :  "  Neither  shall  the 
priests  the  Levites  want  a  man  [to  stand]  before 
me  to  offer  burnt  offerings,  and  to  kindle  meat 
offerings,  and  to  do  sacrifice  continually." 

If,  further.  Is.  i.  1 2  and  foil,  was  to  be  regarded 
as  an  evidence  for  the  essentially  hostile  attitude 
of  the  prophet  toward  sacrifice,  then  the  prophet 
in  ver.  i  5  must  be  regarded  as  having  pronounced 
himself  with  equal  hostility  against  any  prayer 
("  And  when  ye  spread  forth  your  hands,  I  will 
hide  mine  eyes  from  you  ;  yea,  when  ye  make 
many  prayers,  I  will  not  hear ").  Moreover,  an 
objection  in  principle  on  Isaiah's  part  to  the  mode 
of  worship  as  such  would  be  the  more  incom- 
prehensible, inasmuch  as  with  him   Zion  and  the 


112  ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

temple  hold  such  a  prominent  place  (see,  for 
example,  Is.  ii.  i  and  foil.,  iv.  2-5,  viii.  18, 
xviii.  7,  xxxi.  9,  xxx.  29,  xxxiii.  20.  Comp., 
besides,  Am.  i.  2  and  Mic.  iv.  i  and  foil.),  and  it 
was  in  the  temple  that  the  vision  which  brought 
the  call  to  Isaiah  took  place  (see  Is.  vi.). 

3.  We  have  already  indicated  how  the  appar- 
ently absolute  antagonism  of  the  prophets  to 
sacrifice  in  those  passages  is  to  be  explained  ;  it  was 
due  to  the  circumstances  of  that  time.  Is.  i.  and 
Jer.  vi.  and  foil,  are  directed  against  such  people 
as  gave  themselves  up  to  sin  without  scruple,  and 
quieted  themselves  with  the  thought  that  all  would 
be  made  right  again  by  sacrifice.  The  opus 
operatum  must  be  as  infallible  in  its  effect,  and 
secure  against  punishment  the  person  who  brought 
the  offering,  as  the  mere  possession  of  the  temple 
guaranteed  to  the  people  their  eternal  permanence 
(see  Jer.  vii.  4).  Under  such  circumstances  the 
only  right  course  was  to  insist :  "  Away  with  all 
sacrifices  !  "  It  was  not  for  sacrifices  that  Jahwe 
had  once  addressed  Himself  to  the  people  ;  that 
which  alone  He  required  from  them,  even  with  the 
sacrifice,  was  obedience.  This  is  the  meaning  of 
the  passage  Jer.  vii.  22,  if  we  give  the  word 
'>'il'T-^i;  its  original  meaning  of  "because  of" 
(comp.  Gen.  xii.  1 7  ;  Deut.  iv.  21),  whereas  the 
weakened  meaning  "  concerning  "  can  nowhere  be 


FAr.SE  TRUST  IN  SACRIFICE  113 

proved  with  certainty.  In  the  only  passage  to 
which  this  passage  might  appear  comparatively  the 
nearest  parallel,  2  Sam.  xviii.  5,  Kautzsch  neverthe- 
less translates  "  for  Absalom's  sake  "  !  Then  Jer. 
vii.  22  would  be  at  once  transformed  into  a  proof 
that  he  knows  well  that  God  when  he  brought 
them  out  of  Egypt  had  given  legislation  regarding 
sacrifice  ;  only  they  thoroughly  misunderstood  it 
when  they  thought  that  God  attached  any  import- 
ance to  the  opus  operatum.  It  is  at  any  rate  much 
more  evident  that  the  people,  just  by  the  false 
conception  of  PC,  fell  into  an  overestimate  of 
sacrifice,  as  was  certainly  the  case  in  later  Judaism, 
than  that  without  such  a  legislation  it  should  have 
attained  to  false  confidence  in  sacrifices  and  to  a 
false  security. 

But  we  shall  much  more  readily  be  able  to 
understand  the  polemic  against  the  worship  in  the 
northern  kingdom,  if  we  reflect  what  this  worship 
was  like.  Here  not  merely  was  the  confidence 
perverted  to  the  mere  performance  of  the  action, 
but  the  whole  worship  was  repugnant  to  God  and 
even  in  itself  sinful  (see  especially  Am.  iv.  4),  on 
account  of  which  it  must  incur  the  Divine  con- 
demnation (see  e.g.  Hos.  x.  i.  and  foil).  But  if 
Hos.  vi.  6  has  quite  a  general  sound,  it  is  to  be 
observed  that  in  the  second  clause  of  the  verse 
the  sharp  utterance  of  the  first  is  corrected.  If  it 
is    maintained,    with    the   newer  critics    (so  even 

I 


114  ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT  ? 

Kautzsch),  that  we  must  translate,  "  For  I  desired 
mercy  and  not  sacrifice,  the  knowledge  of  God 
and  not  [instead  of  "  more  than  "]  burnt  offerings," 
and  if  the  conclusion  is  drawn  from  this  that  the 
prophet  wanted  to  know  nothing  of  worship  as 
such,  then  we  may  conclude  from  Prov.  viii.  lO 
("  Receive  my  instruction  and  not  silver ;  and 
knowledge  and  not  [instead  of  "  rather  than "] 
choice  gold  ")  that  the  author  forbids  the  receiving 
of  any  silver  and  gold  !  In  reality,  Hos.  vi.  6 
stands  on  the  same  footing  with  i  Sam.  xv.  22, 
where  Samuel  certainly  also  says  that  to  obey  is 
better  than  sacrifice  and  to  hearken  than  the  fat  of 
rams,  but  he  does  not  therefore  repudiate  sacrifice 
altogether  but  offers  sacrifice  himself. 

The  result  of  our  inquiry  is  this.  Modern 
criticism  may  (see  §  i)  or  may  not  (see  ^§  2  and  3) 
be  right  in  its  view  of  the  passages  from  the 
prophets  ;  in  any  case  its  conclusions  as  to  PC 
are  false,  or  they  are  equally  applicable  to  the 
Books  of  the  Covenant  and  Deuteronomy. 

Relation  (y8)   With  this  we  leave  the  question  which  has 

xl.-xlviii.   just    been   discussed   and   pass    on  to  the    other, 

*°  .*^®        almost  as  important,  regarding  the  relation  between 

Code.         Ezekiel  and  P.      It  is  asserted  (i)  that  Ezekiel  xl.- 

xlviii.  is  unintelligible  after  P,  and  therefore  that 

PC    must    be    placed    later  ;     and    (2)    that    the 

priority    of    PC     is    expressly    excluded    by    Ez. 


EZEKIEL'S  VISION  115 

xliv.  4  and  foil.,  inasmuch  as  the  distinction 
between  priests  and  Levites,  assumed  throughout 
in  PC,  is  here  first  created. 

I.   Let  us  begin  with  the  first  point.     In  Ezekiel  The 

xl.-xlviii.  the  prophet  living  in  exile  has  a  vision,  that  PC 

He   feels  himself  suddenly   carried    away   in    the  J^^*®' 

spirit    into  the   land   of    Israel,  and   finds   himself  Ezekiel 

proves  too 
near  the  new  Jerusalem  (see  xl.  i  and  foil).      The  much. 

structure  of  the  new  temple  with  its  courts  and 
its  surroundings  is  shown  to  him.  Further,  after 
the  entrance  of  Jahwe  (chap,  xliii.)  all  the  laws 
and  ordinances  which  relate  to  the  temple  are 
given  to  him — as,  for  instance,  about  the  persons 
who  are  to  serve  in  it  (xliv.  5  and  foil.),  the 
conditions  of  service,  the  division  of  their  land- 
property,  and  about  sacrifices  and  feasts.  Finally, 
the  wonderful  river  of  the  temple  is  shown  to 
the  prophet  (xlvii.  i  and  foil.),  and  in  conclusion 
the  division  of  the  land  and  the  extent  of  the 
holy  city  are  exactly  stated. 

The  purpose  of  the  whole  vision  and  its 
meaning  has  been  at  all  times  a  crux  interpretum^ 
and  it  cannot  be  said  that  modern  criticism  has 
been  successful  in  solving  the  mystery.  Ezekiel's 
picture  of  the  future  has  no  connection  with  the 
past ;  criticism  has  drawn  from  this  the  con- 
clusion which  suggests  itself  at  the  first  glance 
so  far  as  the  ritual  legislation  of  PC  is  concerned. 


116   ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT  ? 

that  Ezekiel  was  not  acquainted  with  PC,  but 
rather  gave  the  first  outline  of  it,  which  the 
authors  of  PC  followed.  And  yet  that  conclusion 
is  hasty  and  unwarranted.  Ezekiel,  indeed,  has 
just  as  little  connexion  with  the  past,  so  far, 
for  example,  as  the  position  and  structure  of  the 
temple  are  concerned,  or  the  distribution  of  the 
land  among  the  twelve  tribes.  Had  the  temple 
of  Solomon  therefore  not  existed,  or  had  the  holy 
land  not  been  previously  divided  ?  These  points, 
moreover,  are  not  comparatively  subordinate,  but 
occupy  a  larger  space  in  the  vision  than  the 
ritual  legislation.  The  matter  is,  therefore,  not 
so  simple. 

But  it  is  further  asked,  how  could  Ezekiel 
deviate  from  PC,  if  this  ritual  legislation  had 
already  existed,  inasmuch  as  on  the  one  hand 
he  left  so  much  of  PC  unregarded,  e.g.  the  high- 
priest — to  mention  only  this  point — and  on  the 
other  hand  altered  so  much ;  how  could  the 
prophet  dare  to  attack  those  ordinances  which 
were  regarded  as  Mosaic  ?  Even  this  seems  at 
first  sight  very  evident ;  but  it  also  is  only  in 
appearance. 
On  the  In    the    first    place,  the    alleged    principle    of 

principle    criticism  goes  once  more  farther  than  is  intended. 
co^not    According    to    it    the    prophet    ought    to    be    in 

have  been  agreement  with  the  Books  of  the  Covenant  and 

acquainted 

with  the     with  Deut.,  the  two  Books  of  the  Law  which  were 


PROVING  TOO  MUCH         117 

regarded  as  Mosaic.  But  since  here  also  the  Books  of 
agreement  is  lacking,  and  that  too  in  such  a  ^ant^or^ 
way  that  on  the  one  hand  much  is  omitted  which  ^^^  ^®'^*' 
was  given  in  them,  and  on  the  other  hand  there 
is  express  deviation  from  them,  it  is  clear  that 
that  principle  of  criticism  is  false  and  inapplicable, 
or  rather  that,  logically  carried  out,  it  should  at 
once  involve  the  post-exilic  origin  of  the  Books 
of  the  Covenant  and  Deut.  We  give  in  a  few 
examples  the  proof  of  the  alleged  deviations. 
The  Books  of  the  Covenant  and  Deut.  mention 
three  principal  feasts  (see  Ex.  xxiii.  14-17,  xxxiv. 
18-25  ;  Deut.  xvi.  1-17):  the  feast  of  unleavened 
bread  [passover],  the  feast  of  weeks  [harvest  first- 
fruits],  and  the  feast  of  tabernacles  [ingathering], 
which  even  PC  has  accepted  (see  Lev.  xxiii. ; 
Num.  xxviii.).  Ezekiel,  on  the  other  hand,  knows 
only  the  first  and  the  last ;  the  feast  of  weeks  is 
lacking  (see  xlv.  1 8  and  foil.). 

Deut.  enjoins  that  the  tenth  is  to  be  consumed 
in  the  holy  place,  but  that  every  third  year  it 
is  to  be  handed  over  to  the  Levites  (Deut.  xiv.  22 
and  foil.,  xxvi.  12  and  foil.).  Ezekiel  knows  as 
little  of  this  as  of  the  tenth  of  PC  (Lev.  xxvii. 
30-33  ;  Num.  xviii.  20-22). 

Deut.  requires  the  firstlings  to  be  eaten  in  the 
holy  place  (Deut.  xiv.  23-26,  xv.  19-23).  Ezekiel 
no  more  mentions  them  than  the  firstlings  of  PC 
(Lev.  xxvii.  26  and  foil.  ;  Num.  xviii.  i  5  and  foil.). 


118   ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

Deut  requires  as  a  due  to  the  priests  from 
those  who  offer  sacrifices,  the  shoulder,  the  two 
cheeks,  and  the  maw  (Deut.  xviii.  3).  Ezekiel 
knows  as  little  of  this  requirement  as  of  the  corre- 
sponding one  in  PC  (see  Lev.  vii.  31  and  foil.). 

The  first  Book  of  the  Covenant  requires  (Ex. 
XX.  25,  26):  "And  if  thou  wilt  make  me  an 
altar  of  stone,  thou  shalt  not  build  it  of  hewn 
stone ;  for  if  thou  lift  up  thy  tool  upon  it,  thou 
hast  polluted  it.  Neither  shalt  thou  go  up  by  steps 
unto  mine  altar,  that  thy  nakedness  be  not  dis- 
covered thereon."  On  the  other  hand,  steps  lead 
to  Ezekiel's  altar  of  burnt  offering  (Ez.  xliii.  17). 

In  short,  there  is  not  merely  lacking  in  this 
prophet  an  express  reference  to  the  Books  of  the 
Law,  which  even  according  to  criticism  were  then 
regarded  as  Mosaic,  but  the  prophet  disposes 
quite  freely  of  their  contents,  and  therefore  no 
conclusion  can  be  drawn  against  the  existence 
and  validity  of  PC  at  that  time  from  the  devia- 
tions of  Ezekiel  from  it. 

If,  however,  we  look  closely  at  these  deviations 
themselves,  the  difficult  question  of  their  solution 
is  not  brought  a  hair's-breadth  nearer  by  modern 
criticism,  but  in  place  of  the  one  difficulty  another 
and  a  greater  one  simply  appears.  Criticism  used 
to  ask :  How  could  a  prophet  change  the  law 
of  God  ?  We  ask  now  :  How  could  the  authors 
of  PC   deviate  from  the  will  of  God  revealed  to 


DEVIATIONS  FROM  PC       119 

a  prophet  in  a  vision  ?  Only  we  occupy  the 
more  favourable  position  in  relation  to  our 
opponents  ;  for  we  have  in  the  Books  of  the 
Covenant  and  Deut.  an  undisputed  and  indisput- 
able proof  that  the  prophet,  in  consequence  of 
the  Divine  vision,  could  deviate  from  the  Thora  ; 
but  there  is  not  a  single  acknowledged  case  in 
which  priests  ever  dared  to  alter  a  revelation  of 
the  Divine  will  made  to  a  prophet. 

There  would  be  a  reason  which  might  make 
us  disposed  to  accept  the  posteriority  of  PC  if  we 
found  in  it  in  all  cases  an  advance  on  Ezekiel  in 
relation  to  the  instructions  about  sacrifice,  require- 
ments for  the  priests,  etc.  But  if  we  look  more 
closely,  we  find  the  stricter  and  more  far-reaching 
regulations  sometimes  in  Ezekiel,  sometimes  in  P, 
so  that  nothing  can  be  deduced  from  this  either 
for  or  against  It  is  clear,  and  is  candidly  admitted 
by  the  critics  themselves  (see  Smend's  Commentary 
on  Ezekiel  on  xlv.  i8  and  foil.),  that  in  Ezekiel 
everything  is  strictly  systematised,  and  therefore 
in  the  number  as  well  as  in  the  choice  of  offerings 
a  principle  of  proportion  prevails  and  can  be 
recognised.  Thus,  e.g.,  the  sacrifices  at  the  Pass- 
over Feast  and  at  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  are  in 
perfect  proportion ;  thus,  further,  the  mincha 
[meat  offering]  at  the  feasts  consists  regularly  in 
an  ephah  for  the  bullock,  an  ephah  for  the  ram, 
an  optional  quantity  for  the  lamb,  and  a  hin  of 


120  ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 


Ezekiel 
presup- 
poses a 
previous 
ritual 
legisla- 
tion. 


oil  for  the  ephah.  On  the  other  hand,  this 
principle  does  not  appear  in  P,  and  no  other 
principle  can  be  perceived  in  relation  to  sacrifices. 
We  may  compare  especially  Ez.  xiv.  i8-xlvi.  15 
with  Num.  xxviii.  Now  what  reason  could  P 
have  had,  if  it  was  post  -  exilic  and  used  Ez. 
xl.-xlviii.  as  a  starting-point,  to  depart  from  the 
clear  principle  and  to  proceed  without  any  principle 
at  all  ?  Unintelligible  as  this  would  be  in  itself, 
it  is  doubly  so  in  this  case,  since  according  to 
criticism  itself  system  was  the  novel  and  essential 
thing  in  P.  It  must,  however,  be  clear  to  every 
unprejudiced  person  that  the  more  systematic 
Ezekiel  is  the  later. 

A  further  argument  for  the  priority  of  PC  is 
the  circumstance  that  it  is  quite  impossible  that 
Ezekiel  could  have  been  a  first  ritual  legislation. 
For  such  a  purpose  Ez.  xl.-xlviii.  is  much  too 
incomplete.  Bredenkamp,  with  the  most  perfect 
justice,  points  out  (as  above,  p.  118)  "how  com- 
paratively brief  are  the  ritual  enactments  in  com- 
parison with  the  exhaustive  description  of  the 
temple  and  the  future  dwelling-places,  and  how 
much  is  lacking  which  might  be  expected  from  a 
detailed  ritual  legislation  given  for  the  first  time." 
Thus  the  simple  mention  of  sin  offering  and 
trespass  offering  (xl.  39,  xliv.  29),  the  general 
statement  about  dues  (xliv.  30  <2),  and  the  instruc- 
tions  about   clean    and    unclean   required    of   the 


EZEK.  PRESUPPOSES  LEV.     121 

priests  (xliv.  23),  necessarily  presuppose  as  well 
known  more  thorough  enactments  in  detail,  if 
Ezekiel  was  not  to  be  unintelligible.  In  xliv.  26, 
for  example,  it  is  assumed  that  every  one  knew 
how  long  the  uncleanness  (v.  25)  lasted  ;  the  only 
law  on  the  subject  is  Num.  xix.  11,  12. 

Similarly  it  is  only  prejudice  which  can  deny 
that  Ezekiel,  besides,  knew  and  used  at  least  the 
law  of  holiness  (Lev.  xvii.  and  foil.).  If  Jahwe 
at  the  exodus  gave  the  Israelites  statutes  and 
judgments  (see,  ^.^.,  Ez.  xx.  10  and  foil.,  xviii.  9), 
if  these  (xviii.  5  and  foil.)  contained  enactments 
which  we  find  in  P  (see,  e.g.,  Ez.  xviii.  6-8  ;  Lev. 
xviii.  19,  XX.  18,  XX.  10,  xix.  13,  xxv.  37,  14, 
17),  how  can  it  then  be  maintained  that  the  par- 
ticular laws  in  P  were  only  added  to  Ezekiel  with- 
out admitting  that  the  converse  connexion  is  much 
rather  to  be  assumed  ?  In  the  same  way  it  is 
clear  from  Ez.  xxii.  26  not  only  that  the  priestly 
Thora  must  have  been  something  objective, 
fixed,  definite, — since  otherwise  the  expression 
Dpn  (to  profane)  could  not  have  been  used, — but 
especially  that  it  must  have  contained  regulations 
about  clean  and  unclean,  holy  and  profane.  What 
then  is  the  objection  to  recognising  the  greater 
antiquity  of  the  particular  enactments  of  PC  ? 
We  arrive  at  the  conclusion  that  Ezekiel  pre- 
supposes acquaintance  not  only  with  the  law  of 
holiness  (just  referred  to)  but  also  with  the  law  of 


122   ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

sacrifice  (Lev.  i.-vii.)  and  with  the  enactments 
about  the  priests'  dues  (see  especially  Num.  xviii.). 

As,  therefore,  there  is  no  lack  of  allusions  in 
Ezekiel  to  PC,  so  on  the  other  hand  it  would  be 
difficult  to  prove  the  necessity  of  acquaintance 
with  Ezekiel  on  the  part  of  PC.  By  the  following 
argument  it  is  even  as  good  as  excluded.  If 
the  priests  had  relied  upon  Ez.  xl.-xlviii.  in  the 
way  in  which  the  critics  assume,  so  that  they 
only  completed  more  fully  the  programme  of  the 
prophet,  then  it  would  be  quite  incomprehensible 
how  they  could  have  left  quite  unnoticed  and 
unused  the  description  of  Ezekiel's  temple,  the 
distribution  of  the  land  and  other  things,  which 
occupy  the  largest  space  in  that  vision,  and  have 
arbitrarily  laid  hold,  instead,  on  chaps,  xliv.-xlvi., 
only  to  alter  even  these  in  almost  every  point. 

So  far  as  I  can  see,  Ezekiel  xl.-xlviii.  cannot 
possibly  be  brought  into  a  development  of  the 
laws.  Apart  from  the  general  standpoint,  just 
discussed,  that  the  understanding  of  Ezekiel  with- 
out P  is  simply  impossible,  those  chapters  can 
by  no  means  be  smoothly  dovetailed  into  the 
course  of  legislation,  and  deviate  in  many  points 
quite  as  much  from  the  Books  of  the  Covenant 
and  from  Deut.  as  from  PC.  What  Ezekiel 
beheld  in  the  vision  could  only  have  come  into 
force  if  the  conditions  had  been  brought  about  by 
Jahwe   in  the   transformation  of  the  land.      The 


VISION  UNFULFILLED       123 

condition  never  came  to  pass,  and  therefore  the 
whole  legislation,  or  let  us  rather  say  the  whole 
ideal  project  of  Ezekiel,  remained  inoperative.  It 
cannot  actually  be  shown  from  a  single  passage 
that  even  a  solitary  enactment  of  Ezekiel  came 
into  force,  or  was  even  intended  to  come  into 
force,  before  the  building  of  Ezekiel's  temple, 
before  the  entry  of  Jahwe  into  it,  before  the  trans- 
formation of  the  land  and  its  distribution,  and 
before  the  flowing  of  the  wonderful  temple  fountain 
with  its  still  more  wonderful  effects.  But  we  have 
yet  to  give  proof  for  one  passage,  namely,  Ez. 
xliv.  5  and  foil.  Before  we  pass  on  to  it,  let  us 
sum  up  the  substance  of  this  section. 

{a)   No   conclusion    can    be    drawn    from    the  Summary, 
deviations  of   Ezekiel   from  PC  in  favour  of  the 
later  date  of  the  former,  because  such  deviations 
extend  also  to  the  Books  of  the  Covenant,  Deut., 
and  the  foregoing  history. 

{b)  Nothing  is  gained  by  the  assumption  that 
PC  is  later  than  Ezekiel,  but  a  new  puzzle  is 
simply  put  in  place  of  the  old. 

{c)  The  following  reasons,  indeed,  contradict 
this  assumption  : — 

(a)  Deviations  of  the  prophet  from  a  law 
recognised  as  Mosaic  can  be  adduced ; 
but  for  the  deviations  of  the  priests  from 
the  will  of  God  revealed  to  a  prophet  we 
would  have  no  analogy  of  any  kind. 


124   ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT  ? 

(y8)  Ezekiel  is  more  systematic  than  PC  in  the 
sacrificial  legislation,  whereas,  according  to 
the  modern  hypothesis,  quite  the  converse 
might  be  expected. 

(7)  Ezekiel  xl.-xlviii.  as  the  first  legislation  or 
ritual  would  be  incomplete  and  inadequate ; 
it  rather  presupposes  necessarily  such  a 
legislation  as  we  find  in  P  ;  and  besides, 
at  least  an  acquaintance  with  the  law  of 
holiness  is  demonstrable. 

(S)  Conversely,  there  is  no  reference  to  Ezekiel 
in  P,  although  such  was  to  be  expected. 

(e)  The  eclectic  use  of  Ezekiel  by  P  would  be 
quite  unintelligible. 

In  short,  the  general  comparison  of  Ez.  xl.-xlviii. 
and  P  results  adversely  to  modern  criticism. 

The  2.  But  how  does  the  case  stand  in  regard  to  the 

degrada-     passage   Ez.  xliv.  4  and  foil.,  which  treats  of  the 

priests  to   degradation  of  priests  of  the  sanctuary  to  Levites  ? 

Levites 

(Ez.  xliv.  Here  we  come  to  one  of  the  principal  supports 

*  of  modern  criticism.  Thus,  e.g.,  Kautzsch  (p.  181) 
says  :  "  This  requirement  of  Ezekiel  \i.e.  of  that 
degradation]  is  the  root  of  the  distinction  between 
priests  and  Levites,  which  Deuteronomy  as  yet 
knows  nothing  of,  whilst  it  plays  an  eminently 
important  part  in  the  priestly  law.  This  circum- 
stance is  alone  sufficient  to  assign  to  the  so-called 
Priestly   Code    its    proper   place — after   Ezekiel." 


DEGRADATION  OF  PRIESTS   125 

Similarly  Wellhausen  (p.  i66).  How  Deut. 
on  this  point  is  related  to  PC  we  shall  see 
later  on.  The  question  here  at  issue  is  not 
whether  the  modern  exegesis  of  Ez.  xliv.  is 
possible  along  with  others  equally  permissible, 
but  whether  it  is  necessary ;  whether,  in  other 
words,  Ez.  xliv.  taken  by  itself  is  really  adequate 
to  prove  the  later  date  of  PC. 

According  to  PC  the  persotmel  of  worship^ 
represented  through  the  whole  tribe  of  Levi,  is 
divided  into  the  twofold  rank  of  priests  (with  the 
high-priest  at  the  head)  and  the  ordinary  Levites 
(see,  e.g.,  Ex.  xxviii.,  xxix. ;  Lev.  viii.  and  foil., 
xvi.  21  ;  Num.  i.-iv.,  viii.,  xvi.-xviii.).  To  the 
first  class  are  appointed  all  the  sons  of  Aaron,  to 
the  second  all  the  other  Levites.  According  to 
modern  criticism  this  lower  rank  was  only  created 
for  the  first  time  by  the  degradation  of  the  priests 
of  the  sanctuary,  which  is  described  in  Ez.  xliv. 

The  passage  Ez.  xliv.  4  and  foil,  falls  into 
two  sections.  First  of  all,  according  to  vers.  4-8, 
Israel  sinned  grievously,  inasmuch  as  they  appointed 
to  the  care  of  the  inferior  service  in  God's  sanctuary, 
which  He  had  entrusted  to  themselves,  "strangers, 
uncircumcised  in  heart  and  uncircumcised  in 
flesh."  The  second  train  of  thought  is  imme- 
diately connected  with  this  (ver.  9  and  foil.)  : — 
When  Israel  fell  into  idolatry  in  the  high  places, 
the  priests — who  are   described   by  the  repeated 


126  ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

expression  "  the  Levites  that  went  astray  from  me  " 
— were  partakers  in  it.  Only  the  central  priesthood 
of  Jerusalem,  "  the  priests  the  Levites,  the  sons  of 
Zadok,"  had  no  part  in  that  idolatry ;  they  alone, 
therefore,  may  still  remain  priests.  Those  others, 
on  the  contrary,  as  a  punishment  for  their  trans- 
gressions, must  henceforth  perform  in  the  sanctuary 
the  lower  service  handed  over  in  the  most  recent 
past  to  the  uncircumcised  strangers.  This  is  the 
substance  of  Ez.  xliv.  4-15.  In  this  point  we 
at  once  feel  ourselves  in  agreement  with  the 
critics,  that  it  is  a  real  degradation  of  priests  that 
is  here  spoken  of,  and  not  merely  a  replacement 
in  a  former  rank  from  which  they  had  illegally 
raised  themselves  ;  for  then  the  expression  "  they 
shall  bear  their  iniquity"  in  vers.  10  and  12  would 
scarcely  be  intelligible. 

If,  then,  P  was  already  in  existence  before 
Ezekiel,  the  priests  degraded  to  the  inferior  posi- 
tion are  all  the  sons  of  Aaron,  the  descendants 
of  Aaron's  sons,  Eleazar  and  Ithamar  (see  Lev. 
X.),  except  the  sons  of  Zadok.  But  when  criticism 
thinks  it  necessary  to  conclude  from  the  passage 
that  the  lower  position  to  which  they  were  con- 
demned was  an  absolutely  new  one  created  by 
Ezekiel,  so  that  the  previous  existence  of  P  would 
be  thereby  excluded,  not  only  can  this  not  be 
proved,  but  it  can  be  expressly  refuted  from  the 
verses  4-8. 


DEGRADATION  IMPLIES  LAW  127 

{a)  If  the  prophet  can  here  make  the  greatest  But  this 
religious  and  moral  reproaches  against  the  Israel-  im^fes^  ^^^ 

ites  (even  that  of  breaking^  the  covenant,  in  case  ^^^^o^fdi- 
^  fc>  '  ence  to  a 

we  are  to  read  in  ver.   7 — with  the  Sept.,  Well-  previous 

enact- 
hausen,  Kautzsch,  Kohler,  Bredenkamp,  and  others  ment. 

— "^ipn^  instead  of  ^"ip^^J  because  they  admitted 

heathen  strangers  to  that  service  in  the  sanctuary 

which  had  been  entrusted   to  themselves,  this  is 

only  morally  justifiable,  nay,  it  is  only  intelligible 

at  all  on  the  ground  that    Israel  had  received  a 

command  from  God  to  attend  themselves  to  this 

inferior  temple  service. 

If,  then,  we  assume  P  to  be  post-Ezekiel,  we 

look    in   vain    for   such    an    enactment    to   which 

Ezekiel  could  have  appealed.      But  we  certainly 

find  it  in  P,  especially  in  the  passage  Num.  xviii. 

3,  4,  with  which  Ezekiel  is  in  harmony,  even  to 

the  very  words.      If,  moreover,  the  order  is  here 

given  in  the  more  definite  form  that  that  service 

is  specially  assigned  to  the  Levites,  this   is    not 

only  not  remarkable  but  very  intelligible  ;  for  if 

the  care  of  the  sanctuary  had   been  handed  over 

to  the  Israelites  in  general  by  an  express  command 

of  God,  it  is  clear  that  more  thorough  regulations 

had   to   be   imposed,   and   probable   that   specific 

persons    were    entrusted    with    this    service.       If, 

nevertheless,    it   is    maintained    that    Ezekiel    was 

not    acquainted    with    PC,   it   remains    a   mystery 

how  he  could  venture  to  reproach  the   Israelites, 


128   ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT  ? 

and  how  they  could  have  put  up  with  it.  Both 
of  these  things  seem  to  be  an  impossibility. 

From  the  passage  in  Ezekiel,  so  far  as  I  can 
see,  the  following  is  clear.  Ezekiel  was  at  any 
rate  acquainted  with  the  distinction  between  a 
higher  and  lower  grade  of  service  in  the  sanctuary  ; 
regulations  must  have  been  familiar  to  the  Israel- 
ites not  only  about  the  higher  (priestly  service), 
but  also  about  the  lower.  But  these  are  only  to 
be  found  in  PC,  according  to  which  the  latter 
service  was  assigned  to  the  Levites.  They 
handed  it  over  to  heathen  strangers,  and  Israel 
calmly  looked  on.  Now  the  priests — according 
to  PC  the  sons  of  Aaron,  with  the  exception  of 
the  sons  of  Zadok — who  were  partakers  in  the 
idolatry  are  in  future  to  discharge  this  duty  as  a 
punishment  for  their  transgression.  But  there  is 
no  room  for  the  suggestion  that  Ezekiel  was  the 
first  to  create  this  inferior  grade. 
Ezekiel  (b)  That  PC  with  its  distinction  between  priests 

13,  pre-  '  and  Levites  is  presupposed,  follows  further  from 
apposes    ^j^g    £^^^    ^^^^    ^l^jg    distinction    appears    in    Ez. 

xlviii.  II,  13  as  something  quite  familiar  and  self- 
evident,  whilst  Ezekiel  does  not  give  the  slightest 
hint  that  he  intends  henceforth  to  describe  the 
degraded  priests  specially  as  "  Levites  "  in  con- 
trast with  the  sons  of  Zadok,  who  were  themselves 
indeed  also  Levites,  and  are  further  described  by 
him  as  "  the  priests  the  Levites  "  or  as  "  sons  of 


"LEVITE  "  NOT  A  REPROACH  129 

Levi."      This  would  have  been  absolutely  necessary 

in   the  event  of  the  priority  of  Ezekiel.      But   if 

PC  was   the  older  book,  according  to   which   the 

title    of  "  Levites "    was    expressly   given    to    the 

personnel  of  the  lower  rank  of  service,  it  was  of 

course  unnecessary. 

{c)   But  even  if  Ezekiel  had  expressly  said  that  The  word 

he  would  describe  the  degraded  priests  henceforth  could  not 

as  ''Levites"  Kar  efo^^V,  it  would,  on  Wellhausen's  chosen  IT 

own   showing^    be  incomprehensible    how    Ezekiel  ^  mark  of 

punish- 
could  have  chosen  this  name  for  the  newly  created  ment. 

rank.  Wellhausen  (p.  142)  says:  "Not  only  in 
Deuteronomy,  but  everywhere  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, except  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  and  Chronicles, 
Levite  is  the  priest's  title  of  honour."  Since,  how- 
ever, in  Ezekiel  the  admittedly  new  position  is  a 
position  of  punishment,  he  could  not  really  have 
found  for  it  a  more  inappropriate  name. 

{d)  There  is  a  further  difficulty  for  modern  Incred- 
criticism  if  we  consider  the  method  in  which  Ezekiel  Ezekiel 
is    supposed  to  have  introduced   this   distinction.  f^J^^^.^^^® 

According;  tocriticism, those  priests  of  the  sanctuary  duced  the 

^  ^  ^  distinc- 

had  been  within  their  perfect   right.      Wellhausen  tion, 

says,  for  example  (p.    120) :   "  Hitherto  these  men 

(the  Levitical  priests  of  the  sanctuary)  occupied  the 

priesthood,   and   that,  too,   not  in   consequence  of 

despotic   usurpation,   but   by  reason   of  their  just 

rights."      And  on  p.  i  2  I  :   "  It  is  a  strange  justice 

that   the    priests    of  the   abolished   Bamoth  [high 

K 


130   ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

places]  are  punished  because  they  were  priests  of 
the  abolished  Bamoth,  and  conversely,  the  priests 
of  the  Jerusalem  temple  are  rewarded  because  they 
were  priests  of  the  temple  :  the  guilt  of  the  former 
and  the  merit  of  the  latter  consists  in  their  exist- 
ence. In  other  words,  Ezekiel  merely  throws  a 
moral  mantle  over  the  logic  of  facts."  In  the 
first  place,  Wellhausen  is  mistaken  in  seeing  in 
that  worship  of  the  high  places  only  the  worship 
of  Jahwe  and  not  idolatry,  which  does  not  agree 
with  Ez.  xliv.  lO  and  many  other  passages.  As 
we  are  proceeding  historically  and  not  dogmatic- 
ally, we  shall  not  dwell  upon  the  fact  that  in  this 
case  the  prophet  would  act  in  a  manner  not  only 
very  questionable,  but  absolutely  objectionable  from 
a  moral  point  of  view,  although  I  must  regard 
it  as  even  historically  false  to  credit  a  man — 
who  otherwise  stands  before  us  in  spotless  purity, 
and  who  besides  asserts  high  moral  and  religious 
principles  which  have  still  their  value  even  in 
Christendom — with  acting  in  such  a  way,  if  con- 
vincing proofs  of  it  of  a  quite  different  kind  are 
not  forthcoming. 

But  even  if,  as  I  have  said,  we  pass  away  from 
this,  we  must  still  wonder  at  the  man's  folly,  nay, 
even  find  it  incomprehensible.  How  could  he 
hope  to  attain  anything  by  such  means  ?  Let  us 
think  for  a  moment  of  the  year  623.  In  that 
year  Deut.  is  said  to  have  indeed  abolished  the 


AN  IMPOSSIBLE  THEORY    131 

high  places,  but  to  have  expressly  permitted  the 
priests  of  the  high  places  to  perform  priestly 
service  in  Jerusalem  as  well  as  their  brethren  (see 
Deut.  xviii.  6.  We  saw  above  that  this  idea  was 
quite  impossible,  p.  31).  Deut.  is  said,  moreover, 
to  have  been  carried  out  and  recognised  ;  only  this 
enactment  had  never  prevailed  (see  2  Kings  xxiii. 
9),  and  the  Levitical  priests  had  themselves 
neglected  to  appeal  to  Deut.  for  their  rights. 
(Again  an  impossibility  ;  see  above.)  Now,  in  the 
exile,  Ezekiel  comes  and  is  not  contented  that 
these  unhappy  people  had  been  thrown  out  of 
their  calling  and  means  of  subsistence,  but  assigns 
to  them  a  quite  subordinate  position,  and  that  too 
as  a  punishment,  although  they  had  been  quite 
innocent.  Did  it  not  occur  to  him  at  all  that  the 
degraded  priests  would  rise  as  one  man  and 
unsparingly  disclose  his  objectionable  mode  of 
action  ?  In  reality  criticism  assumes  that  he 
could  not  succeed  in  this  way.  Stiff  battles  must 
have  taken  place  such  as  are  mirrored  in  Num.  xvi. 
The  authors  of  PC  would  therefore  have  founded 
differently  the  position  of  the  Levites — a  point  on 
which  something  must  be  said  later  on.  At  any 
rate  it  ought  to  be  supposed  that  Ezekiel  himself 
must  have  been  clever  enough  to  see  that  he  could 
not  thus  attain  his  object  ;  that  did  not  require 
much  penetration.  Even  a  child  will  defend  itself 
energetically  if  it  is  blamed  and  punished  although 


132   ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

it  is  in  the  right.  But  here  it  was  men  who  were 
in  question,  men  whose  whole  position  was  being 
ruined  and  to  whom  a  perpetual  stain  was  being 
attached. 

And  yet  the  prophet,  with  his  short-sightedness, 
had  once  more  an  unheard-of  good  fortune.  The 
position  of  the  Levites  might  be  otherwise  founded 
in  PC,  the  restriction  of  the  priesthood  to  the  sons 
of  Zadok  might  not  be  discontinued ;  but  the 
prophet  would  have  nevertheless  attained  what  he 
wanted.  From  that  moment  the  separation  of 
priests  and  Levites  would  be  taken  in  hand,  and  in 
the  scanty  number  of  the  Levites  who  returned 
after  the  exile  in  the  year  528  (74;  see  Ezra  ii. 
40)  the  plainest  proof  is  discovered  for  the  correct- 
ness of  the  modern  view  of  Ez.  xliv.  ;  though 
very  erroneously.  If  it  was  really  as  criticism 
represents,  it  would  be  a  cause  of  the  utmost 
astonishment  if,  after  the  irritating  treatment,  even 
a  single  Levite  had  returned  to  perform  the  penal 
service,  whilst,  besides,  it  is  not  so  very  difficult  to 
understand  that  few  serving  Levites  returned ; 
according  to  our  view  of  Ez.  xliv.  their  position 
was  of  so  little  consequence  to  them  that  they  had 
been  able  to  hand  it  over  to  heathen  strangers. 
But,  moreover,  it  is  also  probable  that  a  further 
division  had  already  taken  place  at  that  time 
among  the  serving  staff,  so  that  the  singers,  the 
porters,  and  the  temple-servants  (Ezra  ii.  41,  42, 


EZRA  AND  CRITICAL  VIEW   133 

43)  were  Levites  by  descent  quite  as  much  as  the 
priests,  only  that  by  the  expression  "  Levites " 
they  were  not  meant  any  more  than  the  priests, 
but  the  meaning  was  restricted  to  a  definite  grade 
within  the  serving  staff  (see  Neh.  xii.  44-47  ;  xiii. 
10).  Then  the  74  Levites,  Ezra  ii.,  are  really 
quite  harmless,  since  at  least  the  singers  and 
porters,  and  perhaps  also  the  temple-servants,  were 
also  Levites,  even  though  they  were  no  longer 
described  as  such  (see  also  i  Chr.  xxiii.-xxvi.). 

(e)  Modern  criticism  is,  besides,  very  unwise  to  Ezraii. 
appeal  to  Ezra  ii.      For  how  does   it   propose  to  support 
explain  the  large  number  of  priests  (4289)  if,  first  *^f  ^P^^' 
of  all,  according  to   Ezek.  xliv.,  only  the  sons  of 
Zadok  were  still  priests  ? 

In  addition  to  this  is  the  fact  that  one  cannot 
understand  how  the  intention  of  Ezekiel  had  been 
so  hastily  carried  out,  since  he  intends  his  new 
order  only  for  the  time  after  the  building  of  the 
new  temple,  in  which  the  sons  of  Zadok  and  the 
degraded  priests  of  the  sanctuary  were  to  perform 
their  service,  and  since  nothing  else  of  Ezekiel's 
programme  seems  to  have  been  executed. 

{/)    If  we  here   proceed   at  once  to  the  further  The 

development    which   the   question   of  priests    and  theory 

Levites  has  assumed   in   modern  criticism,  it  may  ^u^th^^ra^f 

be   shown    from   this  also    how   utterly   untenable  ^^  ^i*^ 

astound- 
the  modern  conclusions  are.  ing  folly. 

Since  in  the  year  458  the  Levites  again  showed 


134  ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

little  desire  to  return,  and  the  hostility  of  the 
degraded  priests  to  the  irritating  purpose  of 
Ezekiel  found  vent  (as  Num.  xvi.  and  foil,  is  to 
be  read),  it  was  at  last  perceived  in  priestly  circles, 
according  to  criticism  (see  Kautzsch,  p.  194),  that 
the  position  of  the  Levites  must  be  founded  other- 
wise than  in  Ezekiel,  in  order  to  succeed  really 
and"  permanently  with  that  innovation  ;  it  was 
clear  that  Ezekiel  had  made  a  complete  mistake 
with  his  "  moral  mantle "  which  he  had  thrown 
over  "  the  logic  of  facts."  They  were  therefore 
cleverer  than  Ezekiel,  it  would  appear.  And  yet 
on  closer  consideration  the  conduct  of  the  priests 
would  be  still  more  foolish.  Let  us  assume  that 
Ezekiel  had  prepared  the  degradation  and  ap- 
pointed it  as  punishment.  The  opposition  to  it 
is  so  intelligible  that  the  lack  of  it  would  be 
strange.  There  were  now,  in  my  opinion,  only 
two  reasonable  ways :  either  the  demand  of 
Ezekiel  was  allowed  to  fall  to  the  ground  entirely 
and  the  distinction  between  priests  and  Levites 
was  not  introduced  at  all — in  other  words,  was 
given  up  again — or  with  reckless  consistency  the 
demand  of  Ezekiel  was  tenaciously  adhered  to 
and  appeal  was  made  to  the  fact  that  God  had 
announced  through  the  prophet  His  unchangeable 
will.  The  authors  of  PC  take  a  third  way  ;  they 
seek  to  sweeten  the  bitter  pill  for  the  Levites,  and 
to    reconcile   them   to    their   inferior   position,  by 


FOLLY  OF  AUTHORS  OF  PC  135 

representing  their  service  no  longer  as  a  punish- 
ment but  as  an  honour.  "  According  to  Ezekiel 
xliv.  10  and  foil,  the  condemnation  of  the  priests 
of  the  sanctuary  to  an  inferior  service  in  the  holy 
place  was  a  merited  punishment  ;  according  to 
the  Priestly  Code  the  service  of  the  Levites  is  by 
virtue  of  Divine  appointment  an  honourable  office 
of  which  they  might  be  proud  "  (Kautzsch,  p.  194). 
Even  here  we  refrain  from  passing  judgment  on 
the  morality  of  such  conduct,  but  we  hope  that 
many  a  reader  will  be  repelled  by  the  questionable 
methods  to  which  criticism  has  again  to  resort. 

Here,  too,  we  only  confirm  the  incredible  folly 
of  the  authors  of  PC  and  its  still  more  incredible 
result. 

How  could  they  even  hope  to  attain  anything 
in  such  a  way  ?  If  the  Levites  had  previously 
refused,  their  refusal  must  now  have  been  really 
challenged  ;  or  was  it  really  so  difficult  to  observe 
that  the  case  was  quite  differently  represented 
here  from  the  way  Ezekiel  put  it  ?  No  ;  they 
would  only  have  exposed  themselves,  and  in  the 
feeble  yielding  on  the  part  of  the  priests  it  was 
quite  evident  that  they  felt  themselves  insecure  in 
their  position,  and  that  they  were  quite  convicted 
of  being  in  the  wrong  and  of  doing  wrong.  No 
doubt  the  state  of  affairs  would  have  been  altered 
and  concealed  by  taking  refuge  under  the  authority 
of  Moses.     But  even  this  could  not  succeed.     The 


136  ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

degraded  Levites  required  only  to  point  to  the 
history  and  to  the  fact  that  down  to  the  time  of 
Ezekiel  nothing  was  known  (as  criticism  assumes) 
of  a  distinction  between  priests  and  Levites,  and 
that  he  had  nevertheless  clearly  and  plainly  (again 
speaking  in  the  sense  of  the  critics)  introduced 
the  position  for  the  first  time.  And,  further, 
they  could  protect  themselves  with  Deut.  and 
thus  set  law  against  law.  Here  it  was  surely 
quite  clear  that  Moses  knew  nothing  of  a  dis- 
tinction between  priests  and  Levites,  but  recog- 
nised all  Levites  as  entitled  to  the  priesthood. 
Incidents  such  as  that  of  Num.  xvi.  and  foil, 
might  be  found  ten  times  over  ;  in  Deut.  there 
was  the  last  will  of  the  great  lawgiver.  In 
short,  all  the  arguments  which  we  made  valid 
generally  under  the  "  Criticism  of  the  modern 
result "  repeat  themselves  here  on  a  particular 
point  with  increased  force.  The  authors  of  PC 
must  have  said  to  themselves  that  the  Levites, 
whose  position  was  at  stake,  would  leave  no  stone 
unturned  to  spy  out  any  weak  points  which  the 
priests  presented,  to  discover  inconsistencies,  and 
at  any  rate  to  adduce  everything  which  could  be 
adduced  at  all  in  their  own  favour. 

If  we  are  to  follow  the  critics  we  must  credit 
the  authors  of  PC  with  such  folly.  But  now  a 
further  miracle  takes  place :  the  opposition  is 
silenced  as  if  in  a  moment.       The  priests  have 


FRESH  DIFFICULTIES       137 

more  good  luck  than  good  sense.  They  succeed 
with  their  new  estabHshment  of  the  position  of 
Levites.  The  Levites  themselves  fulfil  their  office 
and  have  not  the  slightest  idea  of  cherishing  any 
mistrust  against  the  new  Book  of  the  Law  ;  they 
had  indeed  joined  in  subscribing  their  obedience 
to  it  (Neh.  X.  i,  10-13),  ^^^  the  rest  had  associ- 
ated themselves  with  them  (Neh.  x.  28,  29). 

In  short,  the  Graf  -  Wellhausen  hypothesis 
shows  itself  in  this  point  also  to  be  a  really 
monstrous  construction  of  history  ;  it  makes  un- 
precedented demands  on  its  adherents,  and  creates 
difficulties  in  comparison  with  which  those  urged 
by  Wellhausen  are  mere  child's  play. 

The  position  is  not,  moreover,  made  more 
probable  by  the  fact  that  P  considers  not  merely 
the  sons  of  Zadok,  but  all  the  sons  of  Aaron, 
entitled  to  the  priesthood.  What  does  this  ex- 
tension mean?  If  we  are  to  find  therein  a 
further  confirmation  of  the  view  that  Ezekiel's 
enactment  was  not  successful  and  that  others  had 
to  be  admitted  to  the  priesthood,  then  what  has 
been  above  adduced  would  be  sufficient  on  this 
point.  We  should  have  to  conclude  that  the 
remaining  Levites  had  appealed  to  such  cases  of 
precedent.  But  if  no  confirmation  is  to  be 
found  in  the  extension  by  P,  then  we  are  con- 
fronted by  a  puzzle.  What,  in  this  case,  is  the 
meaning  of  the  introduction  of  the  two  sons  of 


138   ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

Aaron,  Nadab  and  Abihu  (Lev.  x.),  who  die  with- 
out leaving  any  descendants  ?  Before  we  refer  to 
a  further  difference  between  PC  and  Ezekiel  xliv., 
which  remains  unexplained  by  criticism,  let  us  in 
this  connexion,  where  we  have  spoken  of  the 
priests  the  sons  of  Zadok,  call  attention  to  a 
strange  assertion  of  the  newer  critics.  It  is 
asserted  that  Zadok  was  "  the  beginner  of  an 
absolutely  new  line "  which  could  not  trace  its 
origin  farther  back  than  the  commencement  of 
the  time  of  the  Kings  (see  Wellhausen,  p.  123). 
Since,  however,  it  was  desired  to  let  the  claim 
of  his  descendants  to  the  priesthood  appear  justifi- 
able, the  aid  of  a  Divine  revelation  had  to  be 
sought.  For  this  purpose  the  prophecy  to  Eli 
(i  Sam.  ii.  27  and  foil.)  arose,  which  is  supposed 
to  have  originated  with  the  Deuteronomist. 

But  if  it  was  so  generally  known  down  to  the 
time  of  the  exile,  that  Zadok  by  descent  had  no 
claims  to  the  priesthood,  then  the  following  points 
are  quite  unintelligible  : — 

1.  Deut,  originating  in  the  seventh  century,  is 
supposed  to  have  reference  to  existing  conditions 
throughout.  How,  then,  could  it  emphasise  the 
Levitical  descent  of  the  priests  (see  the  expression 
d^^hrt  D'^Dnsn,  ^.^.,  in  xviii.  i)  if  the  very  centre 
of  the  priesthood  did  not  possess  this  descent  ? 

2.  How  could  it  occur  to  one  who  wrote  in  the 
sense    of  Deut.  to    make    Zadok   legitimate  in  a 


A  NEST  OF  CONTRADICTIONS  139 

manner  which  contradicted  the  requirements  of 
Deut.,  inasmuch  as  he  showed  that  Zadok  was 
not  a  Levite  (i   Sam.  ii.  27  and  foil.)  ?  ^ 

3.  How  can  Ezekiel,  a  few  years  later,  in  con- 
tradiction to  tradition  and  the  passage  just  quoted, 
assume  as  self-evident  that  Zadok  was  of  Levitical 
descent  (see  Ezek.  xl.  46,  xliii.  19,  xliv.  15)? 

Here,  therefore,  is  once  more  quite  a  nest  of 
contradictions,  if  we  accept  the  assumptions  of 
criticism.  i  Sam.  ii.  27  has  been  entirely  mis- 
understood and  arbitrarily  interpreted. 

But  to  return  to  Ezek.  xliv.  If  the  authors  of 
PC  had  depended  on  Ezekiel,  they  would  certainly 
have  taken  up  also  the  duties  of  the  newly-created 
office.  According  to  Ezek.  xliv.  there  was  not 
merely  assigned  to  the  inferior  Levites  the  care  of 
the  sanctuary  (comp.  vers.  8  and  14  with  Num. 
xviii.  3  and  foil.)  ;  they  had  also  to  slay  the 
burnt  offerings  and  the  sacrifices  for  the  people 
(ver.  11)  and   to  boil  the  sacrifices  (xlvi.  24).      Of 

^  The  author,  Mr.  Moller,  in  reply  to  an  inquiry  about  this 
paragraph,  says  :  "  I  Sam.  ii.  27  and  foil,  has,  in  my  opinion,  not 
the  slightest  reference  to  Zadok  in  the  sense  which  Wellhausen 
means.  This  reference  is  introduced  into  it  for  the  first  time  by 
Wellhausen,  and  that,  too,  without  any  proof,  but  purely  on  the 
basis  of  a  hypothesis.  Zadok  is  mentioned  as  priest  under  David, 
2  Sam.  XX.  25  (comp.  i  Kings  i.  34),  along  with  Abiathar  ;  the 
latter  is  deposed,  i  Kings  ii.  27  ;  here  there  is  a  reference  to  I 
Sam.  ii.  27  and  foil.  But  that,  conversely,  i  Sam.  ii.  27  and  foil, 
first  originated,  ex  eveniu,  in  order  to  legitimise  Zadok,  who  is 
thenceforth  high-priest  (comp.  Ezek.  xl.-xlviii.)  is  a  pure  assumption, 
which  I  have  endeavoured  to  refute  above." — Trans. 


140  ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 


this  there  is  not  a  word  in  P.  There  the  chief 
function  of  the  Levites  is  the  transport  of  the 
tabernacle  (see  Num.  iii.).  If  then  the  chronicler 
expressly  declares  (i  Chron.  xxiii.  25  and  foil.)  that 
the  privileges  of  the  Levites  were  extended  under 
David  (cf.  also  2  Chron.  xxx.  1 7,  xxxv.  1 1  and 
foil.),  there  is  in  this  fact  not  only  a  confirmation 
of  the  historical  truth  of  the  Chronicle,  which  was 
very  unlikely  to  alter  P,  but  also  an  evidence  that 
the  deviations  of  Ezek.  from  P  are  explained  by 
the  development  in  the  course  of  the  history.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  deviation  of  PC  from  Ezekiel 
is  incomprehensible. 
The  true  Ezekiel  xliv.  4  and  foil,  has  therefore  become 

seq^nce  ^  proof- passage  against  the  modern  hypothesis. 
Let  us  repeat  the  most  important  points.  PC 
must  be  earlier  than  Ezekiel ;  for  otherwise  the 
prophet  could  not  reproach  the  Israelites  for 
appointing  heathen  strangers  to  the  care  of  the 
temple  which  had  been  imposed  as  a  duty  upon 
themselves  ;  otherwise,  after  the  degradation  in 
xliv.  9  and  foil,  he  could  not  assume  and  introduce 
without  further  comment,  as  if  well  known,  the 
distinction  between  "  priests  "  and  "  Levites  " 
(xlviii.  II,  13);  otherwise  he  could  not  have 
given  to  the  degraded  ones  the  hitherto  honour- 
able title  of  the  priests — "  Levites."  The  modern 
view  of  Ezek.  xliv.  breaks  down  further  in  this 
that    Ezekiel    would    punish    the    priests    of   the 


Ezekiel, 
not 

Ezekiel 
—P. 


PC  MUST  PRECEDE  EZEKIEL   141 

sanctuary  for  something  that  they  could  not  help  ; 
here  neither  the  prophet's  action  nor  its  con- 
sequence would  be  intelligible.  We  had  to  say 
the  same  in  regard  to  the  authors  of  PC,  who 
would  have  deviated  incomprehensibly  from 
Ezekiel  in  the  establishment  of  the  new  office, 
in  the  extension  of  the  priesthood  to  all  the  sons 
of  Aaron,  and  in  the  definition  of  the  duties  of 
the  Levites.  Finally,  the  rapid  execution  of  this 
particular  enactment  of  Ezekiel  would  be  quite 
unintelligible.  If  we  add  §  i,  the  complete  result 
is  that  the  true  sequence  is  not  Ezekiel — P,  but 
P — Ezekiel. 


(7)   Even  in  the  case  of  the  argument  which  Relation 
modern  criticism  deduces  from  history  it  cannot  be  history, 
our  task  to  remove  all  difficulties  ;  we  shall  content  ll^^^^^l^ie 

ourselves  with  indicating  the  lines  on  which  they  Priestly 

^  Code, 

may  be  met.      We  are  above  all  anxious  here  to 

show  the   false  principles  on  which   criticism   has 

proceeded. 


I .   When  it  is  asserted  that  there  are  no  traces  Are  there 

of  PC  in  the  history  before  444,  we  must  first  make  of  pc 

it    clear    what    we    are    to    understand    by    this.  JJJg*Q® 

Allusion  has  often  been   made   above  to   the  fre-  before 

444? 
quent  assertion  of  criticism  that   PC  only  codified 

the   practice  and   reduced  it  to  a   system   (see  p. 

66  and  foil.).      But  if  we  ask  for  traces,  it  quickly 


142   ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

falls  back  upon  the  artificial  distinction  between 
usage  and  codified  law,  and  asserts  that  here  there 
is  only  usage.  In  how  many  cases,  however,  will 
the  historian  be  in  a  position  to  say  whether 
something  takes  place  only  from  usage  or  from 
obedience  to  a  law  ?  Apart,  therefore,  from  what 
we  have  said  above  ("  Criticism  of  the  modern 
result,"  §  2)  against  this  view  of  PC,  I  find  that 
it  is  asking  too  much  if  we  are  not  content  with 
such  proofs  in  a  general  way,  but  demand  quite 
unequivocal  evidences  that  the  subject  is  not 
merely  the  contents  of  PC  generally,  or  a  usage, 
but  a  codified  law.  Then  the  literature  before 
444  must  appear  similar  to  the  historical  work  of 
the  chronicler  (Ezra,  Nehemiah,  Chronicles),  which 
certainly  regards  the  history  from  the  point  of 
view  of  PC.  Let  us  think  for  a  moment  of  this 
historical  work.  Where  do  we  find,  then,  in  the 
other  literature  after  444  such  clear  traces  of  the 
existence  of  PC  ?  And  how  much  is  now 
transferred  by  criticism  to  this  period — think  of 
the  numerous  sections  of  the  prophetic  books  and 
the  Psalter !  Nay,  even  in  the  Psalms  which 
praise  the  Law  (Ps.  i.,  xix.,  and  especially  cxix.) 
I  can  find  no  specific  traces  of  PC.  This  might 
restrain  us  from  making  too  extravagant  demands 
on  the  period  before  444. 

In  PC  the  ritual  is  regulated  down  to  the  most 
minute  detail  ;  certainly  the  life  of  the  individual 


TRACES  OF  PC  BEFORE  444  143 

Israelite  was  influenced  by  it  also  in  a  high  degree 
if  he  adhered  to  PC.  But  in  history  that  which 
regularly  happens  is  not  usually  mentioned  speci- 
ally, because  it  is  regarded  as  self-evident  and  is 
familiar  to  every  one.  Of  this  kind  are  the  customs 
of  daily  life  and  purely  legal  enactments  and  their 
observance,  and  so  it  follows  that  before  as  well 
as  immediately  after  444  PC  might  often  remain 
unnoticed.  Wellhausen  has  skilfully  used  the  first 
argument,  and  has  known  how  to  take  advantage 
of  it  for  his  hypothesis  ;  the  second,  on  the  other 
hand,  he  has  ignored. 

But  if  we  are  once  convinced  of  the  fact  that 
the  conditions  after  444  were  not  essentially 
different  from  what  they  were  before  it,  it  follows 
either  that  that  conclusion  was  not  justified  for 
the  period  before  444,  or  else  that  we  must  come 
much  farther  down  with  PC.  Besides,  if  we  wanted 
to  build  as  much  on  the  traces  of  the  Books  of  the 
Covenant  as  on  those  of  PC,  we  could  quite  as 
easily  place  them  as  late  as  444  ;  of  this  we  shall 
speak  in  the  next  section. 

Further,  it  is  not  the  case  that  there  would  be 
no  traces  of  PC  before  444.  We  will  not  follow 
them  up  in  detail,  but  only  examine  the  arbitrary 
action  of  criticism  in  relation  to  such  traces. 

All  passages  from  P,  as,  e.g.,  the  note  in  Jos. 
xviii.  I,  that  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation 
was  set  up  in  Shiloh,  are  a  priori  regarded   by  it 


144   ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

as  unhistorical.  Here  two  things  are  at  once 
mixed  up  which  should  be  strictly  kept  separate. 
That  is  to  say,  it  is  quite  a  different  thing  whether 
I  regard  the  history  of  a  people  from  a  particular 
standpoint,  and  consequently  emphasise  and  render 
prominent  those  features,  and  only  those,  which 
harmonise  with  that  standpoint,  or  whether  I  not 
merely  bring  out  those  features  but  invent  them. 
To  the  former  there  is  no  objection  except  that 
it  is  a  one-sided  action  ;  the  latter  deserves  the 
reproach  of  being  the  grossest  falsification  of 
history.  On  the  critical  theory  the  reproach 
would  fit  JE,  which  invents  the  history  of  the 
patriarchs  in  accordance  with  the  religious-ethical 
conditions  of  the  time  of  the  prophets,  the  Deutero- 
nomist  (see  the  discussion  on  Deut.  §  6),  and  the 
authors  of  PC,  who  would  have  not  merely  regarded 
history  from  a  one-sided  point  of  view,  but  ex- 
pressly falsified  it. 
The  Against    this    we    must    enter    the    emphatic 

""istory "  objection,  not  only  that  it  is  in  itself  a  quite 
is  itself  arbitrary  assertion,  incapable  of  proof,  not  only 
historical,  that  those  men  appear  again  in  a  very  peculiar 
light,  not  only  that  with  quite  as  much  right  we 
may  set  down  as  unhistorical  and  reject  the  narra- 
tive in  2  Kings  xxii.  and  foil,  and  Neh.  viii.-x., 
but  that,  viewed  rationally,  it  is  simply  unthinkable 
and  would  stand  quite  alone  in  the  history  of 
nations.      Let  us  suppose    that  some  one  in  the 


CRITICS  DISTORT  HISTORY     145 

sixteenth  century  wanted  to  write  German  history 
and  would  ascribe  the  art  of  printing  to  the  ancient 
Germans  ;  another  in  the  beginning  of  our  century 
would  assume  the  steam  printing-press  as  already 
in  use  in  the  most  ancient  times.  One  would 
describe  our  ancestors  as  travelling  by  railroad  ; 
another  would  have  them  using  the  electric  light. 
Would  we  submit  to  this  or  place  implicit  confi- 
dence in  such  a  disfigurement  of  history  ?  In  the 
history  of  Israel  such  a  process  would  have  been 
repeated  three  times  in  succession  ;  three  times 
the  Israelites  would  have  allowed  a  completely 
different  representation  of  their  history  to  be  im- 
posed upon  them  ;  three  times  they  are  so  good 
as  to  submit  to  this  as  well  as  to  the  three  mutually 
contradictory — yet  introduced  as  Mosaic — collec- 
tions of  laws. 

How  foolish,  truly,  is  this  people  !  But  how 
foolish  also  the  authors  !  They  alter  the  history 
agreeably  to  their  own  opinion,  and  not  only 
introduce  their  own  principles  and  points  of  view, 
but  they  invent  histories  to  suit  these,  and  yet 
allow  to  remain  beside  them  the  old  narratives 
which  contradict  them  and  expressly  exclude  them. 

Thus,  then,  there  is  on  the  one  side  an  incom- 
prehensible impiety  toward  history,  and  on  the 
other  a  still  more  incomprehensible  reverence  for 
other  sources.  Because  such  a  method  of  treating 
Israelitish  history  is  a  monstrosity  which  carries 

L 


146   ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

the  stamp  of  impossibility  on  the  face  of  it,  nothing 
remains  but  to  assume  that  the  various  narratives 
do  not  mutually  exclude,  but  supplement  one 
another.  Each  of  them  gives  true  history,  even 
though  one-sidedly  from  a  particular  point  of 
view ;  but  it  is  certainly  not  the  case  that  what  is 
narrated  by  each  of  them  is  pure  invention,  for 
then  the  earlier  narratives  would  not  have  been 
allowed  to  remain  calmly  beside  them. 

Applying  this  to  the  special  case  before  us,  we 
must  regard  it  as  wrong  to  brand  as  unhistorical, 
without  further  explanation,  all  historical  references 
in  P.  It  holds  good  here  and  elsewhere  : — Either 
I  must  use  most  conscientiously  the  comparatively 
rare  references  to  Israelitish  history  in  re-stating 
them,  or  I  must  regard  them  as  unhistorical  and 
thus  disable  myself  completely  from  knowing  any- 
thing certain  about  that  history.  For  I  repeat 
that  we  only  require  to  apply  to  Nehemiah  viii.- 
X.  for  PC  the  principle  of  method  applied  by 
modern  criticism  to  2  Kings  xxii.  and  foil,  for 
Deut,  which  would  only  be  consistent,  and  the 
Graf-Wellhausen  hypothesis  is  entirely  in  the  air ! 
The  procedure  of  the  critics  in  treating  the  sources 
so  arbitrarily,  and  at  the  same  time  wanting  to 
draw  a  faithful  historical  picture,  is  a  contradictio 
in  adjecto  and  forfeits  a  priori  every  pretence  to 
credibility. 

Besides,  it  is  not  enough  for  the  critics  to  reject 


UNSCIENTIFIC  METHODS     147 

only  the  traces  which  are  ascribed  to  PC  itself  as 
eo  ipso  unhistorical,  because  by  this  means  alone 
it  would  not  attain  its  object.  If  other  traces  are 
found,  they  prefer  to  choose  any  other  explanation, 
so  as  not  to  be  compelled  to  admit  that  there  are 
actually  influences  of  P  to  be  found.  They  either 
help  themselves  in  the  way  indicated  above,  and 
say  that  the  reference  is  only  to  a  usage  but  not 
to  the  observance  of  a  codified  law,  or  they  assign 
such  passages  to  a  late  date,  a  strange  petitio 
principii  (see  Judges  xix.-xxi.),  or  they  brush 
aside  the  words  in  question  as  glosses,  without 
being  able  to  assign  the  slightest  reason  for  doing 
so  ;  thus,  e.g.^  in  the  new  translation  by  Kautzsch, 
in  the  expression  S'^n^n  iTlBrT  in  2  Kings  xxii.  4, 
8,  xxiii.  4,  the  Sman  is  simply  regarded  as  a 
gloss,  without  it  being  thought  necessary  to  assign 
any  reason.  And  then  it  is  maintained  that  there 
is  no  trace  of  the  high-priest  before  the  exile ! 
But  in  this  fashion  anything  may  be  proved,  or  at 
least  maintained.  There  is  here  an  end  to  all 
scientific  procedure,  and  they  are  quite  unjustified 
in  boasting  of  their  historical  method. 

We  do  not  stop  to  indicate  in  detail  such  traces 
in  the  pre-exilic  period  (see,  e.g.,  I  Sam.  ii.  1 1  and 
foil.,  where  the  conduct  of  the  sons  of  Eli  at  the  sac- 
rifice is  regarded  as  a  grave  offence ;  see  vers.  16,  17, 
which  assume  the  transgression  of  enactments  like 
Lev.  vii.  30,  32,  x.  i  5  ;  Ex.  xxix.  30,  3  i  ;  Lev.  viii. 


148   ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

31  ;  Num.  vi.  19,  20  ;  Lev.  vii.  29-32  ;  see  Kohler, 
ii.  p.  13,  note  2,  and  Strack's  Einleitung^  §  I3>  3)« 
It  is  clear  that  according  to  the  principles  referred 
to  they  would  be  set  aside  with  a  smile. 

Let  us  only  call  attention  here  to  the  fairly 
numerous  traces  immediately  after  the  exile. 
They  are  found  therefore  at  a  time  when  they 
must  be  very  unwelcome  to  modern  criticism,  since 
they  really  are  only  justified  in  appearing  in  444 
for  the  first  time.  For  it  was  hitherto  one  of  the 
principal  levers  for  unhinging  the  earlier  view  and 
assigning  PC  to  the  time  shortly  before  444,  to 
assert  that  the  contents  of  the  law  promulgated 
in  Neh.  viii.-x.  was  something  totally  new  to  the 
people  (see  above,  "Criticism  of  the  modern  result," 
§  I,  and  Kautzsch,  p.  194).  But  now  since  the 
return  from  the  exile  not  only  is  the  distinction 
between  priests  and  Levites,  about  which  we  spoke 
above,  quite  self-evident  (see  Ezra  ii.  36,  40  ; 
Neh.  vii.  39,  43),  but  even  the  high-priest,  whom 
Ezekiel  is  supposed  not  to  have  known  (according 
to  criticism  he  did  not  even  know  the  Feast  of 
Weeks,  see  above),  appears  all  of  a  sudden  (see 
Hag.  i.  I  ;  Zech.  iii.  6,  10  and  foil.),  and  nowhere 
is  there  any  mention  of  the  introduction  of  this 
highly  important  institution.  How  is  this  con- 
ceivable, and  how  does  it  harmonise  with  the  other 
principles  of  criticism  ?  For  this  priest  Urim  and 
Thummim   are  wanting,  which  belonged    to  him 


PRE-EXILIC  TRACES  OF  PC    149 

according  to  Exod.  xxviii.  30  (see  Ezra  ii.  63  ; 
Neh.  vii.  65).  The  question  of  Haggai  (Hag.  ii. 
1 1  and  foil.)  presupposes  that  the  Thora  of  the 
priests  covered  such  questions  of  ritual,  and  the 
answer  is  given  in  accordance  with  Lev.  vi.  20, 
Num.  xix.  22.  The  prophet  Malachi,  whom 
criticism  places  before  444,  is  nevertheless  regarded 
by  it  as  Levitical  through  and  through,  and  pre- 
supposes the  enactments  of  PC  on  the  tithe,  see 
iii.  8-10  (comp.  Nowack,  Kleine  Propheten^  on  this 
passage). 

Ps.  xl.,  on  account  of  its  polemic  against 
sacrifice,  is  brought  down  by  criticism  to  the  exile  ; 
in  verse  7  the  sin  offering,  which  is  only  minutely 
described  in  P  (see  Lev.  iv.),  is  assumed  as  some- 
thing well  known.  Similarly  P  is  presupposed 
in  Ezra  vi.  8  and  foil.  Should  it  be  said  in  reply 
that  PC  became  naturalised  by  degrees  in  its 
various  sections,  then  not  only  is  that  argument 
abandoned  that  in  Neh.  viii.-x.  something  quite 
new  is  introduced,  but  the  whole  position  is  made 
much  more  difficult  than  it  is  already  ;  for  then 
the  people  must  have  allowed  themselves  to  be 
deceived  still  oftener,  and  believed  that  enactments 
differing  from  one  another  and  hitherto  entirely 
unknown  were  nevertheless  Mosaic. 

We  have  shown  that  criticism  in  its  demand 
for  traces  is  too  audacious  ;  that,  further,  it  is 
arbitrary   for    it    to    deny    all    credibility   to    the 


150  ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

historical  references  of  PC  and  to  brush  aside 
other  traces  simply  as  glosses,  and  that  finally  it 
is  impossible  for  it  to  do  anything  with  the  traces 
before  444.  The  result  is  that  the  argumentum 
e  silentio  either  proves  nothing  or  can  only  be 
made  applicable  by  the  arbitrariness  of  modern 
criticism,  or  finally  directs  itself  against  the  critics 
themselves,  inasmuch  as  what  they  demand  is 
actually  in  existence  before  444. 

That  the  2.   Let  US  now  turn  to  the  argument  that  PC 

ments  of    cannot  be  pre-exilic,  because  it  was  so  generally 
vSirtedis  violated.      But  here  also  far  too  much  is  at  once 

no  proof    concluded.       Let    this    principle    be    consistently 
that  they  i'  ^  y 

did  not  carried  out  and  it  will  be  seen  whither  it  will  lead. 
The  Book  of  the  Covenant  was  in  existence, 
according  to  criticism,  for  several  centuries,  and 
yet  it  was  not  able  to  prevent  the  abominations, 
described  in  2  Kings  xxiii.,  which  were  forbidden 
by  it  (see  "  Criticism  of  the  modern  date  of  Deut- 
eronomy," §1).  It  must  therefore,  to  be  consistent, 
have  originated  only  after  623.  But  we  must 
come  down  to  a  still  later  date  with  it.  Inter- 
marriage with  the  heathen  inhabitants  of  the  land 
was  clearly  forbidden  (Ex.  xxxiv.  1 6) ;  yet  even 
in  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century  they  gave 
themselves  little  concern  about  it  (see  Mai.  ii.  10 
and  foil.;  Ezra  ix.  i  and  foil.;  Neh.  x.  30,  31  ; 
xiii.   23   and  foil.).       Therefore  it  could  not   yet 


A  NON  SEQUITUR  151 

have  been  in  existence  at  that  time.  The  same 
holds  good  of  Deut.,  which  contains  the  same 
enactment  (Deut.  vii.  3). 

Deut.  must  also,  therefore,  necessarily  be  placed 
after  the  exile,  because  the  offences  censured  by 
it  were  in  existence  quite  as  much  after  623  as 
before  it,  which  is  freely  conceded  by  Wellhausen. 
The  narrative  in  2  Kings  xxii.,  xxiii.  must  therefore 
rest  upon  fiction,  as  is  assumed  also  with  regard 
to  the  reformation  of  worship  under  Hezekiah, 
2  Kings  xviii. 

Further,  Nehemiah  viii.-x.  must  also  rest  upon 
fiction,  for  the  newly-introduced  Book  of  the  Law 
is  immediately  violated  (see  Neh.  xiii.  10  and  foil.). 

In  short,  it  is  a  quite  erroneous  principle  to 
infer  the  non-existence  of  a  law  from  the  fact  of 
its  violation.  If  PC  is  to  go  back  to  Moses,  it  is 
not  at  all  strange  if  the  Israelites  violate  it 
immediately  (see  Ex.  xxxii.  ;  Lev.  xvii.  7  ;  Deut. 
xii.  8  ;  Ezek.  xx.)  and  after  their  immigration  ; 
on  the  contrary,  it  would  be  a  source  of  infinite 
wonder  if  they  had  not  deviated  from  it  to  the 
right  or  to  the  left.  For  we  surely  will  not  forget 
that  those  laws  did  not  spring  from  the  spirit  of 
the  people  any  more  than  the  Books  of  the 
Covenant  and  Deut,  but  that,  according  to  the 
Bible  narrative,  they  were  rather  given  to  the 
people  from  above — one  might  even  say,  forced 
upon  them — against  the  will  and  inclinations  of 


152  ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

the  latter — proof  enough  that  it  required  a  long 
education  finally  to  bend  the  stiff  neck  of  the 
unbending,  disobedient,  ungodly  race,  and  to 
secure  recognition  for  the  Divine  commands. 

It  may  be  very  obvious  to  the  intellect  if  the 
development  of  the  people  proceeds  more  smoothly, 
although  even  according  to  the  modern  hypothesis 
it  is  not  at  all  smooth,  as  the  above -quoted 
examples  prove  ;  but  this  development  is  only  an 
intellectual  abstraction  and  contradicts  the  Biblical 
views  as  well  as  the  other  processes  of  history  and 
the  history  of  salvation. 

What  would  be  said  to  the  following  construc- 
tion of  Church  history  ?  If  we  consider  the  New 
Testament,  we  stumble  on  an  intolerable  contradic- 
tion :  Jesus  demands  the  observance  of  the  law 
which  He  has  intensified  and  makes  salvation 
dependent  upon  works  (see,  e.g..  Matt,  v.-vii. ;  vii. 
2  1  ;  XXV.  31  and  foil.).  We  find  the  same 
elsewhere,  as,  e.g.^  in  James  ii.  14  and  foil.;  in 
St.  Paul's  Rom.  ii.  6,  ii.  13,  xiv.  10  and  foil.; 
2  Cor.  V.  10  ;  Gal.  vi.  7  and  foil.,  and  frequently. 
Alongside  of  this  there  appears  another  view  quite 
irreconcilable  with  it,  that  of  justification  by  faith, 
with  which  everything  else  is  given,  even  the 
assurance  of  future  perfection.  But  if  we  consider 
the  development  of  Church  history,  the  latter  idea 
disappears  almost  entirely :  the  few  traces  which 
are  to  be  found  of  justification  by  faith  alone  are 


AN  ANALOGOUS  ABSURDITY     153 

extremely  suspicious  ;  for  there  is  always  at  hand 
the  other  rule  that  it  depends  upon  our  works. 

It  is  quite  otherwise  since  the  sixteenth 
century  ;  then  the  Pauline  doctrine  comes  to  the 
front.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  Luther  did 
not  bring  it  to  light  out  of  the  past,  but  it  was 
his  own  work,  born  from  his  own  particular  ex- 
perience. Convinced  of  its  truth,  he  wanted  to 
make  it  accessible  to  others.  But  he  could  not 
anticipate  much  success  if  he,  the  simple  monk, 
did  not  conceal  himself  behind  a  higher  authority. 
He  chose  Paul  and  interpolated  his  own  view  in 
St.  Paul's  epistles.  There  arose  no  opposition. 
That  which  was  Luther's  own  production  appeared 
to  his  contemporaries  as  reformation.  Zealous 
adherents  of  his  then  compared  the  Church 
history  with  the  supplemented  St.  Paul,  and  as  it 
contained  no  traces  they  interpolated  them. 

Such  a  construction  of  history  would  be 
laughed  at,  and  the  men  who  put  it  forward  would 
be  considered  fit  for  an  asylum  ;  and  yet  we 
would  have  a  fairly  exact  analogy  to  the  Graf- 
Wellhausen  hypothesis.  No  one  will  advance 
that  suggestion,  because  we  possess  a  much  too 
thorough  literature  of  the  whole  of  Church  history 
from  its  very  beginnings.  Nevertheless  the 
illustration  is  instructive.  It  shows  us  that  the 
full  revelation  was  made  in  Christendom  at  the 
beginning,  that  then  there  could  come  a  time  of 


154   ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

perversion,  so  that  even  the  most  pious  under- 
stood it  fully  only  at  rare  moments,  and  that 
after  several  centuries  a  return  to  it  took  place, 
only  indeed  to  lead  to  torpidity  in  the  age  of 
orthodoxy.  Is  it  so  improbable  for  the  old 
Covenant  that  the  highest  stood  at  the  top  of  the 
history  of  the  people,  prepared  for,  of  course,  by 
the  Divine  leading  of  the  patriarchs  ;  that  then  a 
period  follows  of  complete  falling-away,  of  neglect 
and  rejection  of  the  prescribed  rules,  even  on  the 
part  of  the  most  pious ;  and  that  then  only 
after  a  long  education  the  people  are  led  to  an 
acknowledgment  of  the  Divine  laws  ? 

This  is  development ;  for  the  result  is  here 
aspired  after  from  the  first ;  it  is  included  like  a  germ 
in  the  beginning,  in  the  principle.  According  to 
modern  criticism,  on  the  other  hand,  notwithstand- 
ing assertions  to  the  contrary,  there  is  no  develop- 
ment at  all ;  for  the  sequel  never  grows  organically 
out  of  what  goes  before,  but  follows  at  a  jump 
and  is  dependent  upon  chance  circumstances. 
Thus  Deut.  represents  a  revolution  as  compared 
with  the  Books  of  the  Covenant ;  for  we  saw  how 
criticism  failed  in  deducing  from  the  history  the 
demand  for  concentration  of  worship.  Similarly, 
P  is  not  the  necessary  development  of  the  pre- 
ceding history  (see  "  Criticism  of  the  modern 
result,"  §  2),  and  is  equally  antagonistic  to  Deut. 
But  the   other   arguments  which  have   been   put 


LAWS  EASILY  FORGOTTEN    155 

forward  against  the  Mosaic  origin  (the  impossi- 
bility of  the  tabernacle,  etc.)  have  been  long  since 
refuted  by  Hengstenberg,  Havernick,  and  others. 
Here  also  we  are  dealing  of  course  not  with 
details  but  with  the  whole  ;  PC  may  have  been 
codified  only  at  a  later  date  ;  particular  enactments 
may  have  been  constantly  added  to  the  parent 
stem  ;  this  may  be  the  subject  of  further  scientific 
inquiry.  What  concerns  us  is  that  the  ritual 
legislation  in  its  main  features  may  be  attributed 
to  Moses,  even  though  the  whole  of  the  later 
period  down  to  the  exile  were  nothing  but  one 
great  transgression,  and  in  support  of  this  we  can 
appeal  to  the  attitude  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  to  justification  by  faith. 

We  need  not  wonder  that  the  wildness  of  the 
people  seems  so  great  even  in  the  times  of  the 
Judges.  If,  according  to  the  original  sources, 
the  people  with  the  brazen  neck  were  never 
successfully  held  in  obedience  during  the  journey- 
ings  in  the  wilderness  (see  Lev.  xvii.  7  even  in 
P  !  ;  Deut.  xii.  8  ;  Ezek.  xx.  ;  Am.  v.  25  and  foil. ; 
and  especially  Ex.  xxii.,  the  story  of  the  golden 
calf),  although  they  had  just  seen  the  greatest 
miracles  of  their  God,  although  they  were  under 
the  authority  of  Moses,  although  the  whole  people 
was  there  kept  together,  we  cannot  expect  any- 
thing better  of  the  times  of  the  Judges  in  which 
the   unity   was    broken,  the   tribes    mingled  with 


156  ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

the  Canaanites,  the  unifying  head  was  wanting  ; 
besides,  nothing  is  usually  more  quickly  forgotten 
than  benefits  received. 

But  how  difficult  it  must  have  been  to  restore 
order  after  the  Divine  commandments  had  once 
been  allowed  to  pass  out  of  notice  !  What  has 
been  said  must  suffice,  I  think,  to  explain  even 
the  widest  deviations  from  the  Mosaic  laws.  We 
do  not  require,  therefore,  to  discuss  the  passages 
adduced  by  criticism,  but  we  could  admit  them 
all  and  yet  would  not  be  obliged  to  arrive  at 
Wellhausen's  result.  The  illustration  from  Church 
history  and  the  corrupt  conditions  of  the  time  of 
the  Judges  would  be  quite  adequate  to  explain 
how  the  law  might  be  transgressed  even  by  the 
most  pious  without  this  being  regarded  as  a  sin. 
Let  us  recall  also  our  first  inquiry,  where  we 
showed  that  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  condemned 
almost  all  the  abominations  censured  in  2  Kings 
xxiii.,  and  yet  the  pious  king  Josiah  allowed 
them  to  pass  as  something  unforbidden  without 
taking  offence  at  them  until  the  discovery  of 
Deut. 

Yet  we  are  of  opinion  that  the  picture  of  pre- 
exilic  history,  assuming  the  Mosaic  origin  of  PC, 
has  been  painted  quite  too  black  by  Wellhausen, 
and  that  the  offences  have  in  many  cases  been 
created  by  criticism,  whilst  it  ignores  all  the 
attempts  to  remove  or  to  modify  the  difficulties. 


DEVIATIONS  EXPLICABLE    157 

When  in  the  times  of  the  Judges  devout  people 
frequently  offer  sacrifice  at  places  agreeable  to 
them,  in  the  first  place  it  is  not  a  regular  worship 
that  is  referred  to,  but  always  a  single  offering  ; 
and  further,  such  sacrifices  are  always  mentioned 
in  connexion  with  a  theophany  (see  Judges  ii. 
1-5,  vi.,  xiii.),  and  in  some  cases  they  even 
occur  at  the  express  command  of  Jahwe  (Judges 
vi.  25);  must  He  not  be  able  to  remove  a  com- 
mand which  He  had  given  ?  Nay,  were  not  the 
persons  mentioned  acting  in  accordance  with  the 
law  (Ex.  XX.  24)  which  permitted  them  to 
sacrifice  in  every  place  where  Jahwe  caused  His 
name  to  be  remembered,  i.e.  where  He  specially 
revealed  Himself? 

The  case  is  somewhat  different  with  the 
observances  of  worship  in  the  period  from  the 
defeat  of  the  Israelites  by  the  Philistines  described 
in  I  Sam.  iv.  down  to  the  building  of  the  temple. 
Kohler  and  others  have  rightly  noted  that  it 
follows  from  passages  like  Jer.  vii.  12-15,  Psalm 
Ixxviii.  60  and  foil.,  not  only  that  in  the  time  of 
Jeremiah  Shiloh  was  regarded  as  the  central  holy 
place  before  the  choice  of  Jerusalem  (see  "  Criticism 
of  the  modern  date  of  Deut.,"  §  6) — for  no  other 
of  the  holy  places  is  put  on  a  level  with  Jerusalem 
— but,  above  all,  that  with  that  defeat  there  came 
a  rejection  of  this  central  sanctuary,  and  that 
until    the  selection  of   Jerusalem   Jahwe  did    not 


158   ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT  ? 

wish  to  have  any  place  of  continual  revelation  of 
His  grace  any  more.  This  is  confirmed  by  the 
fact  that  the  ark  after  its  return  from  the  land  of 
the  Philistines  to  Kirjath-jearim  was  brought  into 
a  private  house  (i  Sam.  vii.  i),  but  not  to  Nob, 
whither  the  priests  had  betaken  themselves  and 
the  tabernacle  had  been  brought  (see  i  Sam.  xxi., 
xxii.,  especially  xxi.  6).  But  with  the  central 
sanctuary  there  fell  to  the  ground,  naturally,  all 
the  enactments  of  P,  for  these  were  closely  bound 
up  with  it.  If  this  hypothesis,  which  is  rendered 
probable  by  the  particulars  given,  is  correct,  then 
it  is  evident  that  the  ritual  observances  of  this 
period  cannot  be  adduced  either  for  or  against  the 
earlier  existence  and  validity  of  PC. 

In  this  period  are  included  also  the  kingly 
offerings  adduced  by  criticism.  Even  the 
chronicler,  who  elsewhere  writes  always  in  the 
spirit  of  P  and  treats  and  judges  the  history  from 
that  standpoint,  does  not  take  the  slightest 
offence,  e.g.,  at  the  sacrifices  and  priestly  actions 
of  Solomon  (see  2  Chron.  i.  6,  vi.  1-4,  vii.  1-7). 
After  the  temple  is  consecrated,  on  the  other 
hand,  and  the  old  order  restored  along  with  it, 
the  chronicler  does  not  allow  priestly  actions  to 
the  kings  any  longer  ;  this  is  clear  from  2  Chron. 
xxvi.  16  and  foil.,  where  Uzziah's  burnt  offering 
is  regarded  as  a  transgression  and  is  punished. 
According  to  this,  therefore,  the  time  before  the 


THEORY  NOT  PROVED       159 

consecration  of  the  temple  seems,  even  in  the 
purely  Levitical  view,  to  occupy  an  exceptional 
position,  and  it  was  not  considered  at  all  necessary 
to  represent  even  that  period  as  a  time  in  which 
P  was  an  authority.  If,  however,  the  chronicler 
did  not  once  do  that,  we  shall  see  therein  a  proof 
of  the  correctness  of  the  above  view. 

If  we  come  farther  down,  no  proof  can  be 
produced  that  in  the  southern  kingdom,  with  the 
exception  of  some  specially  dark  periods,  the 
violations  of  PC  were  regarded  as  something 
warranted.  It  is  certainly  different  in  the  period 
shortly  before  623  ;  at  that  time  King  Josiah 
takes  no  offence  at  the  abominations.  But  as 
they  were  already  forbidden  in  the  Books  of  the 
Covenant,  and  as  these  are  admitted  to  have  been 
then  a  long  time  in  existence  and  to  have  possessed 
Mosaic  authority,  nothing  can  of  course  be  argued 
from  this  in  favour  of  the  non-existence  of  P. 
Moreover,  we  shall  never  find  out  whether  P  ceased 
in  the  time  of  the  Kings,  and  to  what  extent,  as 
long  as  we  give  no  credence  to  the  Chronicles. 

In  the  northern  kingdom  the  circumstances 
again  were  quite  exceptional  ;  there  we  have  the 
sacrifice  of  Elijah  on  Carmel,  and  similarly  his 
complaint,  "  They  have  thrown  down  thine  altars  " 
(i  Kings  xviii.  32  and  foil.,  xix.  10).  But  if  the 
separation  of  the  two  kingdoms  had  taken  place 
in  accordance  with  God's  will,  it  was  clear  from 


160   ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

the  first  that  Israel  could  not  have  part  in  the 
central  sanctuary  at  Jerusalem,  and  that  all 
enactments  given  regarding  it  fell  therewith  to 
the  ground.  As,  moreover,  the  devout  Israelites 
could  not  share  the  impious  worship  of  images  at 
Bethel  or  Dan,  they  simply  erected  altars  for 
themselves  throughout  the  land. 

I  do  not  see  that  these  attempts  at  explanation 
have  anything  improbable  in  them  ;  but  if  they 
are  rejected,  it  is  still  not  necessary,  after  what 
has  been  adduced  above,  to  fall  back  on  the 
acceptance  of  the  Graf-Wellhausen  hypothesis. 

III.   Criticism  of  the  Modern  Dating  of  the  Books 
of  the  Covenant 

After  we  have  discussed  separately  the  modern 
date  of  Deut.  and  PC,  and  have  in  both  cases 
arrived  at  the  conclusion  of  their  untenability, 
there  remains  finally  the  same  problem  in  regard 
to  the  precepts  of  the  law  in  Ex.  xx.-xxiii.  and 
xxxiv.,  which  are  incorporated  in  J  and  E  and 
also  profess  to  have  been  given  by  Moses  (Ex. 
xxiv.  3,  xxxiv.  27).  Here  also  we  shall  put 
ourselves  from  the  outset  in  the  place  of  the 
critics,  according  to  whom  these  precepts  of  the 
law  originated  long  after  Moses  but  at  least  before 
the  major  prophets,  and  we  shall  here  lay  all  the 
emphasis  on  the  fact  that  the  principles  applied 


EXODUS  XX,  24  161 

by  criticism  to  the  date  of  D  and  P  make  this 
date  of  the  Books  of  the  Covenant  impossible. 

I.  We  turn  at  once  to  the  consideration  of  the  This  date 
1.1.  1  -1  1         is  contra- 

passage  which  is  supposed  to  require  the  modern  dieted 

date  of  the   Books  of  the  Covenant,  Ex.  xx.  24  :  principles 

"  An  altar  of  earth  thou  shalt  make  unto  me,  and  appHed 

by  the 

shalt  sacrifice  thereon  thy  burnt  offerings  and  thy  critics 

rr    '  11  11.  .        11  *o  Deut. 

peace  offerings,  thy  sheep  and  thine  oxen  ;  in  all  and  PC. 

places  where  I  record  my  name  "  (more  accurately, 
"  where  I  shall  bring  my  name  to  remembrance," 
see  p.  loi  note)  "  I  will  come  unto  thee  and  will 
bless  thee."  According  to  Wellhausen  (p.  30) 
this  passage  means  that  they  might  offer  sacrifice 
to  Jahwe  in  any  place.  This  is  said  to  harmonise 
exactly  with  the  practice  before  623,  and  also 
with  the  picture  which  the  original  narratives  J 
and  E,  originating  in  that  period,  give  of  the 
observance  of  worship  by  the  patriarchs ;  the 
passage  therefore  belongs  to  that  period.  The 
latter  is  evidently  only  of  force  if  the  narratives 
about  the  patriarchs  are  not  historical,  and  if  it  is 
assumed  that  E  and  J  simply  dated  back  the 
conditions  of  their  own  time  to  the  time  of  the 
patriarchs  ;  otherwise  there  is  of  course  no  ap- 
propriateness in  it,  inasmuch  as  the  patriarchs 
could  know  nothing  of  the  Mosaic  legislation,  and 
therefore  naturally  sacrificed  wherever  they  pleased. 
We  have  already  shown  in  our  previous  discussion 

M 


162   ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT  ? 

("  Relation  of  the  history  down  to  444  to  the 
Priestly  Code  ")  what  is  to  be  thought  of  all  this 
unhistorical  mode  of  treatment.  But,  as  we  have 
said,  we  desire  to  place  ourselves  at  the  standpoint 
of  our  opponents.  From  that  point  no  one  will 
really  dispute  the  fact  that  the  patriarchs  offer 
sacrifice  wherever  they  please.  In  the  same  way 
the  pre-exilic  history  of  Israel  would  agree  with 
this  view  of  Ex.  xx.  24,  if  the  picture  drawn  by 
Wellhausen  is  correct.  Then,  too,  sacrifice  was 
offered  at  any  place  that  suited.  But  then  it 
remains  absolutely  incomprehensible  how  a  legal 
enactment  could  still  be  issued,  since  it  was  a 
matter  of  course  for  every  one  that  he  could  offer 
sacrifice  anywhere. 

It  must  be  added  that  the  passage  Ex.  xx. 
24  does  not  prove  what  it  is  supposed  to  prove. 
It  is  expressly  said,  "  in  every  place  where  I  bring 
my  name  to  remembrance."  If  this  limitation  be 
added,  Ex.  xx.  24  does  not  adapt  itself  to  the 
history  of  the  patriarchs  ;  for  they  know  nothing 
of  that  limitation,  but  sacrifice  everywhere.  Just 
as  little  does  it  agree  with  the  modern  view  of  the 
pre-exilic  history  ;  for  there  that  limitation  has 
equally  no  meaning,  and  thus,  according  to  the 
modern  view  itself,  there  appears  a  critical 
difference  between  law  and  history. 

Further,  the  Book  of  the  Law  will  not  agree 
with  the  time  to  which  criticisn:^  assigns  it,  if  once 


ARGUMENT  FROM  SILENCE    163 

we  apply  the  canons  of  criticism  which  previously 
led  to  the  modern  view  of  D,  and  especially  of  P. 
We  have  already  discussed  most  of  the  arguments, 
and  here  only  sum  them  up  again. 

We  begin  with  the  argumenttim  e  silentio. 
Where,  then,  do  we  find  in  the  history  the  clear, 
unmistakable  traces  of  the  Books  of  the  Covenant  ? 
The  mere  use  is  not  enough  ;  no,  we  must  con- 
sistently ask  for  traces  which  put  the  codified  law 
beyond  any  doubt.  If  they  cannot  be  found,  we 
are  not  justified  in  placing  the  Books  of  the  Cove- 
nant so  early.  And  as  a  matter  of  fact  they 
are  not  found.  "  Thus  the  prophets  (not  even 
Hosea  iv.  2)  never  appeal  unmistakably  to  the 
Decalogue"  (Bredenkamp,  p.  54).  Or  if  we  con- 
sider the  three  principal  Feasts  which  the  Books 
of  the  Covenant  enjoin  (Ex.  xxiii.  14-18  ;  xxxiv. 
18-25),  it  is  nowhere  stated  that  these  Feasts 
were  observed  out  of  obedience  to  the  Books  of 
the  Covenant.  But  if  we  were  willing  to  be 
content  with  the  general  references  of  the  prophets 
(Is.  i. ;  Amos  v.;  Hosea  ii.  13,  etc.)  and  to  assume 
further  that  Judges  xxi.  19,  20  ;  i  Sam.  i.  3,  20, 
21,  refer  definitely  to  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles, 
and  Is.  XXX.  29  to  the  Passover,  there  would  still 
be  lacking  confirmation  for  the  Feast  of  Weeks. 

1  Kings  ix.  25  is  much  too  general,  and,  besides, 
is    to    be     suspected    as     being    Dcuteronomist ! 

2  Chron.  viii,  1 3  cannot,  of  course,  apply.      If  we 


164   ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

add  that  even  Ezekiel  (xlvi.  i8  and  foil.)  only 
knows  the  Passover  and  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  but 
makes  no  mention,  on  the  other  hand,  of  the 
Feast  of  Weeks,  it  can  admit  of  no  doubt  that 
the  Books  of  the  Covenant  are  post-exilic. 

The  same  result  follows  if  we  reflect  that  in 
Ezek.  xl.-xlviii.  there  is  no  allusion  to  the  Books 
of  the  Covenant.  This  will  lead  to  absolute 
certainty  if  we  compare  Ezek.  xliii.  17  with 
Ex.  XX.  25,  26.  Whereas  Ezekiel  regarded  it  as 
quite  unobjectionable  to  put  steps  to  his  altar, 
the  author  of  the  Books  of  the  Covenant  was 
more  strict  and  most  emphatically  prohibited 
them. 

That  the  Books  of  the  Covenant  are  to  be 
placed  after  the  Exile,  though  not  perhaps  before 
the  prophetic  books,  is  clear  not  only  from  the 
absence  of  definite  traces,  but  also  from  the  atti- 
tude of  the  prophets  to  sacrifices  and  feasts. 
Am.  iv.  4,  V.  21  and  foil. ;  Hos.  vi.  6  ;  Mic.  vi.  6  ; 
Is.  i.  1 1  and  foil.;  Jer.  vi.  20,  vii.  21  and  foil.; 
Ps.  xl.,  1.,  li.,  express  themselves  so  decidedly 
against  all  sacrifice  that  they  could  not  possibly 
have  been  acquainted  with  the  Books  of  the 
Covenant,  for  these  enjoin  sacrifice  (Ex.  xx.  24 
and  foil,  xxii.  19,  xxiii.  18,  xxxiv.  25)  and 
themselves  record  sacrifice  (Ex.  xxiv.  5  and  foil.). 
In  the  same  way  Is.  i.  12  and  foil..  Am.  v.  21 
and  foil.,  absolutely  reject  the  Feasts,  which  the 


VIOLATION  OF  LAWS         165 

Books  of  the  Covenant  quite  as  absolutely  enjoin 
(Ex.  xxiii.  14-18  ;  xxxiv.  18-25). 

Similarly  the  general  violation  of  the  Books  of 
the  Covenant  until  long  after  the  Exile  shows 
that  they  could  not  possibly  have  existed  before 
it.  Worship  of  other  gods,  worship  of  images, 
and  witchcraft  are  forbidden  as  definitely  as 
possible  (Ex.  xx.  3  and  foil.,  23  ;  xxii.  19  ;  xxiii. 
13,24  and  foil. ;  xxxiv.  12-17).  How  then  would 
it  be  conceivable  that  so  pious  a  king  as  Josiah 
should  have  tolerated  all  these  abominations  down 
to  623  (see  2  Kings  xxii.,  xxiii.)?  Above  all,  he 
would  not  have  been  so  alarmed  after  the  dis- 
covery of  the  Deuteronomic  Book  of  the  Law  if  he 
had  not  here  been  confronted  by  entirely  new  enact- 
ments. How  then  can  we  still  hold  to  so  early  a 
date  for  the  Books  of  the  Covenant,  unless  we  are 
willing  to  assume  that  they  were  permanently 
allowed  to  lie  latent,  which  no  reasonable  person 
will  do.  But  we  must  come  still  farther  down 
with  the  Books  of  the  Covenant.  For  their  enact- 
ments are  transgressed  soon  after  623  quite  as 
much  as  before.  Away  with  them,  therefore,  to 
the  time  of  the  Exile.  Even  this,  however,  is 
not  enough.  In  Ex.  xxxiv.  15,  16,  interming- 
ling with  the  heathen  inhabitants  is  forbidden  ; 
but  as  late  as  the  year  444  they  were  marrying 
heathen  wives  unconcernedly  ;  such  a  prohibi- 
tion, therefore,  could   not  have  been   known   (see 


166  ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

Mai.  ii.  lo;  Ez.  ix.  i  and  foil.;  Neh.  xiii.  23 
and  foil.). 

We  will  stop  here.  Why  does  modern  criticism 
not  draw  all  these  conclusions  ?  Because  it  is 
absolutely  inconsistent.  If  it  allows  the  Books 
of  the  Covenant,  notwithstanding  the  opposing 
instances,  to  remain  in  the  place  to  which  it 
removes  them  (namely,  the  time  before  the 
prophetic  books),  then  it  thereby  loses  the  right 
to  apply  the  same  instances  for  the  purpose  of 
bringing  down  the  Priestly  Code  to  the  year  444. 

We  might,  besides,  make  exactly  the  same 
experiment  with  Deut.,  but  we  leave  it  to  the 
reader,  as  we  have  already  given  the  particular 
points  of  it  in  various  places. 

impos-  2.  We  have  up  to  this  point  shown  that  modern 
phJce*the  criticism,  according  to  its  own  principles  of  pro- 
Books  cedure,  has  no  right  to  put  the  Books  of  the  Cove- 
ofthe  &            jr 

Covenant  nant  SO  early.  Now  we  shall  indicate  reasons 
which  make  it  impossible  to  place  them  so  late. 
In  one  respect  modern  criticism  is  better  here 
than  in  relation  to  Deut.  and  PC.  While  in  both 
cases  we  had  to  regard  it  as  impossible  that  the 
authors  should  have  chosen  a  Mosaic  garb,  because 
they  would  then  have  put  themselves  in  contra- 
diction to  the  already  existing  enactments  which 
were  recognised  as  Mosaic,  this  consideration 
would  fall  to  the  ground  in  relation  to  the  Books 


WHY  MOSES  ?  167 

of  the  Covenant,  since  no  codified  Mosaic  collec- 
tion of  laws  would  have  been  yet  in  existence. 
On  the  other  hand,  an  argument  now  arises  in 
intensified  force,  to  which  we  had  to  call  attention 
in  the  discussion  of  Deut.  (§  3).  Whilst  Mosaic 
laws  must  have  been  accessible  to  the  authors  of 
Deut.  and  completely  to  those  of  P,  so  that  this 
explains  why  they  thought  themselves  obliged  to 
refer  their  legislative  enactments  back  to  Moses, 
this  would  not  have  been  the  case  with  the 
authors  of  the  Books  of  the  Covenant.  How, 
therefore,  could  they  arrive  at  the  idea  of  ascribing 
to  Moses  these  laws,  which  according  to  criticism 
take  the  standpoint  of  a  settled  people  ?  How 
could  they  see  in  him  the  lawgiver  Kar  i^o-^t^v 
if  all  the  laws  which  purport  to  come  from  him 
are  to  be  denied  to  him  ?  To  substitute  other 
laws  is  not  only  a  culpable  and  arbitrary  way  out  of 
a  difficulty,  but  absolutely  impossible  according 
to  the  principles  of  criticism ;  for  then  clear  traces 
of  these  postulated  laws  must  be  in  existence. 

Moreover,  it  can  be  shown  that  all  enact- 
ments were  not,  by  any  means,  blindly  attri- 
buted to  Moses.  Otherwise  why  would  the  insti- 
tution of  the  Sabbath  be  put  at  the  beginning 
of  the  world's  history  (Gen.  ii.  3),  circumcision 
performed  on  Abraham  (Gen.  xvii.),  the  custom  of 
abstaining  from  the  sinew  which  shrank  dated 
back  to  Jacob  (Gen.  xxxii.  33)?      Nay,  even  the 


168   ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT  ? 

different  kinds  of  sacrifice  which  P  regulates  are 
introduced  not  as  something  new,  given  by  Moses, 
but  as  something  well  known  and  only  included 
and  incorporated  in  the  ritual  legislation.  Simi- 
larly the  further  division  of  the  personnel  of  the 
tabernacle  into  courses  at  a  later  date  was  ascribed 
not  to  Moses  but  to  David  (i  Chron.  xxiii.  and 
foil.).  Thus  it  is  quite  evident  that  another 
course  was  possible  than  attributing  all  laws  to 
Moses,  that  everything  was  by  no  means  assigned 
blindly  to  him,  that  accurate  distinctions  were 
made,  and  that  it  was  therefore  possible  to  dis- 
criminate as  to  what  enactments  dated  from  him 
and  what  did  not ! 

The  following  is  another  difficulty.  Those 
who  introduced  D  and  C  certainly  thought  that 
they  could  point  to  certain  definite  points  of  time 
at  which  these  laws  were  imposed  (see  2  Kings 
xxii.,  xxiii. ;  Neh.  viii.-x.).  These  narratives 
would  also  reflect  the  extraordinary  impression 
which  these  new  collections  of  laws  would  have 
made.  On  the  other  hand,  we  would  not  hear  a 
word  about  the  introduction  of  the  Books  of  the 
Covenant,  and  yet  this  must  have  been  an  epoch- 
making  event  of  the  first  rank  in  the  history ;  for 
the  first  time  a  codified  legislation  going  back  to 
Moses  would  have  been  received.  But  the  more 
that  modern  criticism  proceeds  on  other  points  with 
the  argumentuni  e  silentio^  the  more  momentous 


MOSES  AND  LAWS  OF  PC      169 

for  it  is  the  fact  that  not  a  trace    should    have 
been  preserved  of  any  such  experience. 

I  believe  that  it  is  the  only  possible  course  here 
also  to  go  really  back  to  Moses  himself  and  to 
give  credence  to  the  Biblical  narrative.  That 
Moses  gave  laws  at  all,  even  such  as  related  to 
ritual  (PC),  to  external  cleanliness,  to  agriculture, 
and,  generally,  to  a  settled  people,  should  not  be 
really  considered  so  incomprehensible  but  rather 
natural,  if  we  reflect  that  Israel  came  out  of 
Egypt,  where  ritual  was  so  elaborated  (see 
Hengstenberg,  Die  Biicher  Moses  wid  Agypien)^ 
and  that  Israel  was  not  to  remain  in  the  wilder- 
ness, but  was  on  the  point  of  entering  upon 
possession  of  the  Holy  Land,  in  order  to  become 
there  a  settled  agricultural  people.  Moreover,  if 
the  Books  of  the  Covenant  had  been  down  to  the 
seventh  century  the  only  codified  legislation,  it  would 
be  a  subject  of  extreme  amazement  that  at  a  time 
when,  even  according  to  the  admission  of  criticism, 
poetry,  history,  and  prophecy  had  long  been  in 
full  bloom,  legal  enactments  should  appear  so 
limited,  which  elsewhere  are  usually  drawn  up  at 
the  very  beginning — apart  from  the  fact  that 
Hosea  viii.  12,  notwithstanding  the  scorn  of 
Wellhausen,  cannot  naturally  be  explained  in  any 
other  way  than  that  at  the  time  of  Hosea  a  mass 
of  codified  enactments  was  already  in  existence. 
Besides,  it  would  be  unintelligible  that  they  did  not 


170  ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

carry  at  least  to  an  equal  extent  the  improvement 
of  justice,  but  arrested  it  for  several  centuries 
down  to  623,  in  order  to  content  themselves  with 
the  few  enactments  of  the  Books  of  the  Covenant. 

Thus,  then,  the  apparent  correspondence  be- 
tween law  and  history  is  for  the  third  time  shown 
to  be  a  mistake. 

This  concludes  a  large  section  of  our  inquiry. 


CHAPTER    II 

COMPARISON  OF  THE  LAWS  WITH  ONE  ANOTHER 

If  up  to  this  point  we  have  compared  the  laws 
with  the  time  in  which,  according  to  criticism, 
they  are  supposed  to  have  originated,  but  on  the 
other  hand  have  refrained  from  a  comparison  of 
the  laws  with  one  another,  we  would  now  pass  on 
to  this  subject  and  inquire  whether  we  can  agree 
with  the  modern  sequence :  Books  of  the 
Covenant,  Deut.,  P.  We  shall  leave  Ezekiel 
quite  out  of  notice  ;  we  have  said  above  all  that  is 
necessary  about  it,  and  have  proved  that  Ez.  xL- 
xlviii.  is  not  to  be  placed  on  a  level  with  the 
other  laws  ;  if,  however,  this  is  done,  it  argues 
quite  as  much  against  as  in  favour  of  the  modern 
sequence.  Since,  further,  the  priority  of  the 
Books  of  the  Covenant  to  Deut.  and  P  is  to  be 
assumed,  both  according  to  the  Biblical  narrative 
and  according  to  the  modern  view,  our  inquiry  is 
substantially  restricted  to  the  sequence  of  Deut. 
and   P.      It  is  only  on   particular   points   that  we 

171 


172   ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT  ? 

shall  have  to  take  the  Books  of  the  Covenant  into 
consideration.  Here,  too,  we  are  not  concerned 
to  follow  the  modern  positions  into  the  minutest 
detail.  We  may  content  ourselves  the  more 
readily  with  few  observations  on  this  point,  as 
most  readers  are  influenced  in  favour  of  the 
modern  theory  by  the  apparent  agreement  between 
the  laws  and  the  history,  which  has  been  discussed 
above,  than  by  the  questions  now  at  issue,  which 
are  in  part  extremely  complicated.  We  have 
therefore  already  accomplished  the  principal  part 
of  our  work  ;  for  the  priority  of  P  to  Deut.,  which 
is  to  be  proved  in  this  discussion,  we  may  especi- 
ally refer  to  the  works  of  Dillmann  and  Delitzsch 
(as  above,  §  9). 

I.  We  shall  commence  our  inquiry  with  two 

general  observations. 

p  alone  {a)  If  we  consider  for  a  moment  how  the  view 

ritual        that  P  must  be  the  latest  of  the  collections  of  laws 

tion  ^and   ^ould  so  easily  and  so  generally  obtain  support, 

therefore   tj^g  explanation  appears  to  me  to  be  very  obvious. 

cannot  be  ^ 

described  P  has  by  far  the  most  exhaustive  and  thorough 

pansio^of  enactments,  and  this  seems  necessarily  to  imply 
the  other  ^^^^  ^^  j^^^^  j^^j.^  ^^  actual  extension,  a  comple- 
tion of  the  other  laws.  But  the  conclusion  is 
proved  to  be  hasty  as  soon  as  we  reflect  that  it  is 
only  P  which  contains  ritual  legislation  ;  Deut. 
and  the   Books  of  the  Covenant  do  not.      Deut. 


WAS  DEUT.  BEFORE  PC?    173 

describes  itself  particularly  as  a  farewell  address 
of  Moses  to  the  people,  in  which  before  his  death 
he  laid  on  their  heart  once  more  the  enactments 
which  specially  interested  him.  The  Mosaic 
element  in  Deut.  may  or  may  not  be  a  mask  ; 
this  at  any  rate  it  shows,  that  it  deals  with  a 
legislation  for  the  people,  in  which  ritual,  interest- 
ing in  the  first  degree  to  the  priests,  had  only  a 
limited  place  ;  for  the  congregation  had  not  to 
provide  for  the  official  worship  at  the  central 
sanctuary.  But  it  is  then  clear  at  the  outset  that 
we  cannot  argue  anything  from  the  more  minute 
enactments  of  PC  in  themselves  in  favour  of  its 
being  subsequent  to  Deut. 

(J?)  It  is  said  that  the  priority  of  Deut.  is  un-  The 
mistakably  shown  by  the  fact  that  it  makes  no  that  Deut. 
reference  whatever  to   P,  and  that  this  would  be  ^f^rence 

unthinkable  if  P  had  already  existed.      But  even  *°  ?  ^^*^ 

"^  both  ways. 

if  we  admit  that  the  assumption  is  correct  and 
that  Deut.  nowhere  really  presupposes  P,  nothing 
is  improved  by  the  change  of  relationship  ;  for 
then  we  ask  with  equal  justice  :  How  could  P 
make  no  reference  to  Deut.  if  it  had  already 
existed  ?  The  same,  precisely,  holds  good  of  the 
deviations  and  contradictions,  they  are  a  priori  as 
difficult  to  explain  in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other. 
If  we  keep  to  the  Biblical  view,  according  to 
which  PC  as  well  as  Deut.  goes  back  to  Moses, 
we  have  a  thoroughly  adequate  reason  for  many 


174   ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

variations ;  Deut.  professes  to  have  been  given 
immediately  before  the  immigration  at  the  end  of 
the  forty  years'  wandering  in  the  wilderness  ;  quite 
a  number  of  variations  of  earlier  laws  resulted 
naturally  from  this. 

In  the  following  pages  we  shall  first  deal  with 
the  passages  from  Deut.  which  presuppose  P,  no 
matter  to  what  dates  Deut.  and  PC  may  be 
otherwise  assigned.  Then  we  shall  discuss  such 
laws  as  also  indeed  suggest  the  sequence  P — 
Deut,  but  are  at  the  same  time  only  possible  if  P 
as  well  as  Deut.  are  ascribed  to  Moses ;  and 
finally,  such  as  can  be  easily  explained  on  the 
assumption  of  the  priority  of  PC  and  the  genuine- 
ness of  PC  and  Deut.,  but  not  if  we  deviate  from 
the  Biblical  date. 

Discus-  2.  When  in  Deut.  x.  i   and  foil,  there  is  a  re- 

particular  minder  how  Jahwe  previously  commanded  Moses  to 
passages,  prepare  an  ark  of  acacia  wood  (comp.  ver.  I  with 
ver.  3),  it  is  a  fact  that  the  erection  of  the  ark  is  only 
commanded  in  P  (see  Ex.  xxv.  10-22);  similarly, 
it  is  only  there  that  it  is  stated  that  it  consisted 
of  acacia  wood.  Therefore  Deut.  must  have  been 
acquainted  with  PC.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is 
said  that  this  is  impossible  because  Deut.  plainly  is 
not  acquainted  with  the  tabernacle  of  PC,  we  reply 
that  Deut.  makes  just  as  little  mention  of  the  tent 
of  meeting,  and  yet  modern   criticism   does  not 


DEUT.  IMPLIES  PC  175 

therefore  dispute  the  priority  of  J  E  to  Deut.  (see 
Ex.  xxxiii.  7-1 1  ;  Num.  xi.  16,  24  and  foil.;  xii. 
4,  5  ;  Deut.  xxxi.  14,  i  5 — this  from  JE  according 
to  criticism).  Besides,  the  command  in  Deut. 
xxxi.  26,  that  the  Book  of  the  Law  is  to  be  laid 
beside  the  ark,  is  sufficient  proof  that  a  roofed-in 
place  is  presupposed  for  it  as  a  matter  of  course. 
Thus,  therefore,  Deut.  x.  i  and  foil,  is  certainly  an 
argument  for  the  priority  of  PC. 

When  in  the  following  verses,  Deut.  x.  8,  9, 
there  is  a  reminder  that  Jahwe  separated  the 
tribe  of  Levi  to  bear  the  ark  with  the  law  (comp. 
Num.  iv.),  to  stand  before  Jahwe  as  a  constant 
servant  (see,  e.g.,  Ex.  xxviii.  35,43;  xxix.  30;  xxx. 
20)  and  to  bless  in  His  name  (Num.  vi.  23  and 
foil. ;  Lev.  ix.  22)  ;  when,  further,  in  the  blessing 
of  Moses  (Deut.  xxxiii.  8)  the  Thummim  and  the 
Urim  (comp.  Ex.  xxviii.  30),  the  teaching  (see, 
e.g.,  Lev.  xiv.  57)  and  the  sacrifices  (Lev.  i.-vii.) 
are  ascribed  to  them,  it  should  not  be  disputed 
that  more  minute  instructions  for  the  tribe  of 
Levi  than  we  find  only  in  P  are  assumed  as 
known.  Ex.  xxxii.  29  (from  E)  is  much  too 
general,  and  could  not  possibly  have  sufficed  to 
make  clear  to  the  tribe  of  Levi  its  obligations  in 
detail. 

When  in  the  following  verse  Deut.  x.  9,  and  also 
xviii.  I,  2  (comp.  xii.  12  ;  xiv.  27,  29)  it  is  ex- 
pressly stated,  Levi    "shall    have   no   inheritance 


176   ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

,  .  .  as  he  hath  spoken  unto  him'^  and  when  that 
command  and  that  promise  only  appear  in  P 
(Num.  xviii.  24,  20),  it  is  only  the  greatest  pre- 
judice that  can  deny  the  dependence  of  Deut. 
upon  P. 
Clean  and  That  the  enactments  about  clean  and  unclean 
animals  in  Deut.  xiv.  3-20  and  Lev.  xi.  2  and 
foil,  are  mutually  dependent,  even  our  opponents 
cannot  deny.  But  that  Deut.  is  not  the  earlier  is 
raised  above  all  doubt,  according  to  the  principles 
of  criticism  itself,  by  the  character  of  the  language 
of  the  passage,  which  corresponds  not  to  Deut. 
but  to  P  (comp.  e.g.  in  Deut.  xiv.  the  expressions 
}>nm  ver.  19  and  po  ver.  14  and  foil,  with  Gen.  i.). 
Deut.  xxiv.  8,  9  expressly  recalls  the  in- 
structions which  God  gave  to  the  priests  :  "  Take 
heed  in  the  plague  of  leprosy,  that  thou  observe 
diligently,  and  do  according  to  all  that  the  priests 
the  Levites  shall  teach  you;  as  I  commanded  them, 
so  ye  shall  observe  to  do."  Enactments  like  those 
of  Lev.  xiii.,  xiv.  are,  therefore,  quite  clearly  and 
definitely  presupposed  as  well  known.  If  we 
reflect  that  these  are  the  only  laws  on  leprosy 
which  have  come  down  to  us  ;  if,  further,  the  ex- 
pression -i>iD  ni^l'^n  is  often  found  in  those  very 
chapters  (Lev.  xiii.  2,  3,  20,  25,  27  ;  xiv.  32,  34, 
33)  ;  if,  finally,  at  the  end  of  the  enactments  of  Lev. 
xiii.,  xiv.  it  is  stated  that  the  priests  must  give 
pronouncement  according  to  these  rules,  I  do  not 


LAWS  OF  CLEANLINESS      177 

know  how  the  existence  of  this   chapter   in    the 
time  of  Deut.  could  be  better  proved. 

Moreover,  laws  of  cleanliness  such  as  we  find  in 
P  must  already  have  existed  and  been  well  known 
to  the  people;  for  in  Deut.  xii.  15,  22,  xv.  22,  it 
is  assumed  that  every  one  knows  what  is  to  be 
regarded  as  clean  and  unclean.  In  xxvi.  13  and 
foil,  such  commandments  are  expressly  recalled, 
as  they  are  given  in  Lev.  xxi.,  xxii.,  and  Num.  xix. 
14  and  foil.,  about  the  defiling  effect  of  dead 
bodies.  Deut.  xxvi.  i  3  and  foil,  runs  thus  :  "  I 
have  put  away  the  hallowed  things  out  of  mine 
house,  and  also  given  them  unto  the  Levite,  and 
unto  the  stranger,  to  the  fatherless  and  to  the 
widow,  according  to  all  thy  commandment  which 
thou  hast  commanded  me  :  I  have  not  transgressed 
any  of  thy  commandments,  neither  have  I  forgotten 
them.  I  have  not  eaten  thereof  in  my  mourning, 
neither  have  I  put  away  thereof,  being  unclean, 
nor  given  thereof  for  the  dead.  I  have  hearkened 
unto  the  voice  of  the  Lord  my  God,  I  have  done 
according  to  all  that  thou  hast  commanded  me." 

The  instruction  (Deut.  xxii.  12)  to  wear  fringes 
on  the  four  borders  of  the  garment  is  unintelligible 
without  the  statement  of  the  purpose  in  Num.  xv. 
38-41. 

The  mention  and  distinction  of  the  various  kinds 
of  sacrifice  (burnt  offering,  meat  offering,  heave 
offering,  peace  offering)  presuppose,  quite  clearly, 

N 


178   ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

a  corresponding  ritual,  which  again  we  find  only 
in  P. 

The  Laws  The  Laws  about  the  Feasts,  which  are  brought 
Feasts.  forward  as  of  first  importance  for  the  modern 
sequence,  deserve  a  more  detailed  consideration. 
The  three  principal  Israelitish  Feasts  (Passover, 
Feast  of  Weeks,  Feast  of  Tabernacles)  are  alleged 
by  criticism  to  have  been  originally  pure  harvest 
festivals  and  to  have  been  adapted  together  from 
the  Canaanites,  whilst  a  historical  reference  was 
imported  into  them  for  the  first  time  by  Deut,  and 
then  completed  in  P.  By  the  centralisation  of 
worship  at  Jerusalem  the  P'easts  were  separated 
from  life,  and  thus  the  historical  element  displaced 
the  agricultural.  With  this  separation  the  differ- 
ence in  dating  is  connected — the  date  of  them  is 
said  to  be  almost  entirely  lacking  in  the  Books  of 
the  Covenant,  to  be  prepared  for  in  Deut,  and  to 
attain  to  consistent  completion  in  P.  Similarly,  a 
change  took  place  in  the  character  of  the  Feasts, 
which  in  the  Books  of  the  Covenant  and  in  Deut. 
is  joyous,  but  in  P,  on  the  other  hand,  receives  a 
gloomy  feature,  inasmuch  as  here  the  general 
offerings  [of  the  whole  people]  appear  in  place  of 
the  peace  offerings  [of  the  individual].  Finally, 
the  number  of  Feasts  in  Deut,  in  comparison  with 
the  earlier  laws,  is  considerably  increased. 

If  we  were  to  admit,  in  the  first  place,  that  all 


THE  FEASTS  179 

the  assumptions  here   made  were   true,  even   then 

the  modern  view  would  remain  utterly  improbable. 

Are  Vv'e    really  to    assume    that   down    to    the  Critical 

time  of  Josiah  there   could   be  an   absence  of  all  that  the 

historical    reference     to    the    Feasts    observed    in  -j.^^^ 

honour  of  God,   and    that    even   in   Hosea's   time  Feasts 

were 
[thanksgiving  for]    corn    and    must    could   be   the  merely 

sole    motive    of   public    worship  (see   Wellhausen,  festivals. 

pp.   94-97)  ?      And   this,  though    at   the   time    of 

the  prophetic  writings  the  mighty  deeds  of  Jahwe 

to  Israel  were  so  popular  among  the  people  that 

these    prophets,    and    Hosea    in    particular,   often 

remind  them  of  the  deliverance  from  Egypt,  and 

other  acts  of  God's  power  through  which  the  land 

with  all  its  resources  was  first  given  to  the  people, 

in    order    thus    to    influence    their    hearers  ?       It 

appears    to    me    the    height    of    improbability    to 

assume  that  Israel  only  observed  Feasts  to  God 

on  account  of  the  resources  of  the  land,  without 

any    historical    reference.       Observe,    we    do    not 

deny  that  the  Israelites  expressed  their  thanks  by 

means   of  tribute  from    the    harvest,  and    at   the 

same  time /or  it,  and   that,  therefore,  there  was   a 

close   connexion   of  the   Feasts  with   agriculture  ; 

only  we  protest  against  the  idea  that  it  can   be  in 

any  way  credible  that   Israel   saw  nothing  in   all 

those  Feasts  but  harvest  festivals,  and  that  God 

felt  himself  pledged   to  nothing  but   the  outward 

blessing,  and    that    therefore    the    only    difference 


180  ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

between    the    Canaanitish   and    Israelitish    Feasts 

was  the  God  in  whose  honour  they  were  celebrated. 

The   passage,    Deut.    xxvi.    i    and  foil.,  to  which 

Wellhausen  (pp.  90,  91)  appeals — it  treats  of  the 

bringing  of  the  first-fruits — shows   as   clearly  and 

strikingly  as   possible  that  he  is  wrong  ;  for  it  is 

clear  from    5    and   foil,   that   the   first    motive  for 

that  offering  was  not  an  agricultural  but  a  historical 

one. 

How  then        There    is   the   further   argument   that,  on    the 

did  the  ^      ,  ,  .  . 

Feasts       acceptance    01    the    modern    view,    it    cannot    be 

comeTo^    adequately    and    satisfactorily    explained    how    it 

have  a       ^^s    suddenly   decided    to    e^ive    the   Feasts    their 

historical  ^ 

reference?  historical   connexion   and   to  separate   them  from 

the    agricultural.      If   we    are    told    that    by   the 

concentration  of  worship   in   Deut.  the  connexion 

between  worship  and  life  was  rent  in   pieces,  and 

that  in   this   way  the  transformation   took    place, 

we  cannot  at  all    see  how   far   the   centralisation 

was    likely,    or   even   fitted    at    all,   to    thrust    the 

agricultural   connexion   to  one  side,  and   put  the 

historical  in  its  place.      For  the  people  still  carried 

on  their  agriculture  even   after  the  concentration 

of  worship,  and  if  the  whole   population  was   and 

remained  an  agricultural  people,  it  is   not  easy  to 

see   why   they   could    not   have    celebrated    great 

united  harvest  festivals  at  the  central  sanctuary  in 

place  of  those  which  had  previously  been  observed 

at  different  places. 


HISTORICAL  MEANING      181 

But  further,  is  it  really  credible  that  a  people 
would  have  allowed  a  totally  different  meaning  of 
their  popular  Feasts  to  be  imposed  on  them  from 
without  ?  If  we  are  referred  for  proof  to  the 
Feast  of  Weeks,  which  certainly  received  a  historic 
meaning  only  through  later  Judaism,  this  reference 
is  not  adequate.  For  here  they  had  in  the  Pass- 
over and  in  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  examples 
for  the  historical  meaning  of  these  Feasts.  It  is 
quite  different,  however,  with  the  introduction  of 
such  an  innovation  for  the  first  time. 

But  quite  apart  from  the  fact  that  there  was 
no  necessity  or  even  inducement  for  the  trans- 
formation of  the  Feasts  from  agricultural  harvest 
festivals  to  historical  anniversaries,  and  that  the 
carrying  out  of  it  must  have  met  with  great 
difficulties  on  the  part  of  the  people,  it  is  very 
incredible  that  this  historical  connexion  should 
have  been  introduced  just  at  a  time  of  political 
decay.  Could  there  really  have  been  any  hope  of 
thus  preserving  the  popularity  of  these  Feasts,  if 
the  great  acts  of  God's  grace  had  not  been 
previously  sufficient  to  move  the  people  to  thanks- 
giving for  them  in  worship,  at  a  time  when  those 
mighty  deeds  were  still  living  fresh  in  the  memory 
of  every  one  ?  But  if  we  were  willing  to  lay  aside 
all  these  considerations,  we  should  at  least  expect 
that  the  historical  transformation  was  proposed  at 
the  same  time  for  all  three  Feasts,  most  naturally 


182   ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

therefore  by  Deut.      Instead  of  this,  only  a  very 

timid  attempt  is  made  in   Deut.  ;   P  goes  farther, 

and  it  was  reserved  for  later  Judaism  to  give  even 

to    the    Feast   of   Weeks    a    historical    reference. 

This  reminds  one  vividly  of  the  dog  whose  master, 

out  of  compassion,  did  not  cut  his  tail  off  all  at 

once,  but  in  pieces. 

I  think  that  this  is  a  strong  argument,  if  ever 

there  was  one,  against  a  transformation  imposed 

upon  the  people  so  mechanically  and  from  outside 

as,  according  to  the  modern  view,  we  must  assume. 

Here  also  an  organic  development  is  not  suggested- 

So  far  we  have  vindicated  more  in  a  general 

way  our  opinion  of  the  Wellhausen  hypothesis  on 

this  one  point.      By  an  examination  in  detail  its 

untenableness  will   be  fully  shown.      It  arbitrarily 

reads  into  the  sources  what  it  likes,  and  what  fits 

into  its  once-constructed  framework  of  ideas. 

Thenames        If  we  begin  with  Deut,  there  is  no  doubt  that 

Feasts  can  the  Passover  and  the  Feast  of  Unleavened  Bread 

only  be      associated  with  it  are  intended  to  recall   the  fact 
explained 

by  the        of  the  deliverance  from   Egypt  (see  chap.   xvi.   i, 
historical  ^\\  ,;  f 

reference.  "  Observe    the    month    of    Abib,    and    keep    the 

passover  unto  the  Lord  thy  God  ;  for  in  the  month 

of  Abib  the  Lord  thy  God  brought  thee  forth  out 

of  Egypt  by  night";  xvi.  3,  "Thou  shalt  eat  no 

leavened  bread  with  it ;  seven  days  thou  shalt  eat 

unleavened   bread   therewith,  even   the    bread    of 

affliction  ;  for  thou  camest  forth  out  of  the  land  of 


NAMES  OF  FEASTS  183 

Egypt  in  haste ").  In  the  case  of  the  Feast  of 
Pentecost  the  historical  note  is  not  lacking  any- 
more than  in  P  (comp.  chap.  xvi.  9  with  Lev. 
xxiii.  15  and  foil.  ;   Num.  xxviii.  26  and  foil.). 

In  the  case  of  the  third  Feast  (see  xvi.  i  3  and 
foil.),  the  description  of  it  as  the  Feast  of  Taber- 
nacles (nSDH  an)  is  simply  unintelligible  without 
the  historical  reference — nay,  without  an  express 
law  such  as  is  contained  in  Lev.  xxiii.  39  and 
foil.  Wellhausen  indeed  maintains  that  the 
people  originally  betook  themselves  to  the  vine- 
yards and  encamped  there  at  the  time  of  the 
vintage  under  improvised  tent-roofs,  and  that  the 
name  is  thus  explained.  But  apart  from  the  fact 
that  the  latter  is  a  purely  imaginary  idea,  in 
support  of  which  Is.  i.  8  is  appealed  to  without 
the  slightest  justification  (contrary  to  Wellhausen, 
p.  84),  that  special  name  is  not  to  be  found  in 
the  older  legislation  of  the  Books  of  the  Covenant, 
just  the  place  where,  according  to  criticism,  it 
would  be  appropriate  (see  Ex.  xxiii.  16,  xxxiv. 
22),  and  is,  strangely,  found  in  Deut,  which  would 
not  be  able  any  longer  to  use  that  name,  because 
it  requires  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  to  be  celebrated 
at  the  central  sanctuary  (Deut.  xvi.  i  3  and  foil.). 
On  the  other  hand,  the  reference  to  the  exodus 
and  the  dwelling  in  booths  during  the  journeying 
in  the  wilderness  remains  as  the  only  natural 
explanation  of  the  name  ;  only  then   P   must  be 


184   ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

older  than  Deut,  and  the  enactment  of  Lev. 
xxiii.  must  be  assumed  as  known  in  Deut.  xvi. ; 
then,  however,  the  historical  reference  appears  in 
an  equal  degree  in  both  legislations. 

If  we  turn  to  the  Books  of  the  Covenant,  it  is 
clear,  indeed,  that  the  two  last  Feasts  are  put 
forward  both  in  Ex.  xxiii.  and  xxiv.  in  their 
character  of  harvest  festivals  ;  yet  it  is  not  to  be 
overlooked  that  there  is  no  further  treatment  of 
the  subject,  and  that  it  is  actually  only  an 
enumeration  of  the  Feasts  that  is  given.  Why 
should  they  not  be  described  there  according  to 
their  distinguishing  feature  as  harvest  festivals, 
which  indeed  they  certainly  were  at  a  later  period, 
even  in  P  ?  That  the  historical  reference  is  not 
necessarily  lacking,  and  that  it  was  certainly  not 
first  imported  by  Deut.,  is  proved  not  only  by 
the  expression  "  the  sacrifice  of  the  feast  of  the 
passover"  in  Ex.  xxxiv.  25  (the  description 
"  passover  "  is  therefore  found  before  Deut. !),  but 
especially  by  the  way  in  which  the  Feast  of 
Unleavened  Bread  is  introduced  ;  in  Ex.  xxiii.  15, 
namely,  it  is  said  :  "  The  feast  of  unleavened  bread 
shalt  thou  keep  :  seven  days  thou  shalt  eat  un- 
leavened bread,  as  I  commanded  thee,  at  the  time 
appointed  in  the  month  A  bib ;  for  in  it  thou 
earnest  out  from  Egypt!'  The  other  passage, 
Ex.  xxxiv.  18,  runs  quite  similarly.  The 
hypothesis     that     the    historical     reference     was 


DATES  OF  FEASTS  185 

imported    at    all    into    the    Feasts    by    Deut.    in 

consequence  of   the  concentration   of  worship,  is, 

therefore,    to    be    regarded    as    contrary    to    facts. 

It  is  not  only  artificial,  but  certainly  false. 

Similarly,   it    is   arbitrary    and   inadmissible   to  The  dates 

prescribed 
adduce    the    more   or    less    exact    dating    of    the  for  the 

Feasts     for    determining     the    sequence    of     the  presup- 

particular  collections  of  laws.      In    Deut,  indeed,  pose  the 
^  '  '  enact- 

in  the  case  of  the  first  Feast  it  is  only  the  month  ments  of 

P. 
Abib  that   is   mentioned  without  a  more  definite 

fixing  of  the  date  (see  xvi.  i  ;  comp.  Ex.  xxiii. 
15,  xxxiv.  18).  But  if  the  Feast  of  the 
Passover  and  Unleavened  Bread  was  to  be  a 
united  celebration  (see  the  solemn  assembly, 
Deut.  xvi.  8),  and  if  it  was  to  be  a  historical 
commemoration  of  the  day  of  departure  from 
Egypt  (xvi.  I,  3),  it  is  quite  clear  that  it  must 
have  been  observed  on  fixed  days.  From  this 
it  necessarily  follows  that  there  must  be,  along 
with  it,  laws  with  such  fuller  details  as  we  find 
in  P.  In  particular,  xvi.  9  is  too  indefinite  and 
presupposes  Lev.  xxiii.  15  and  foil.,  10  and  11. 

Even  in  the  Books  of  the  Covenant  a  celebra- 
tion at  the  central  sanctuary  is  certainly  thought 
of,^  but  not  in  such  a  way  that  every  one  might 

^  Comp.  the  charge  "Three  times  a  year  shall  all  thy  males 
appear  before  the  Lord  thy  God"  in  Ex.  xxiii.  17,  xxxiv.  23; 
Deut.  xvi.  16,  II,  with  Deut.  xvi.  15,  11  {d),  6,  and,  further,  the 
expression  m,i;  n'3  (in  Ex.  xxiii.  19),  to  which  the  people  were  to 
come  (see  also  Jos.  vi.  24;  Judges  xviii.  31  ;  i  Sam.  i.  7,  24  ; 
iii.  15  ;  2  Sam.  xii.  20). 


186   ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

come  at  whatever  time  he  pleased.  For  that  a 
definitely  fixed  time  was  actually  thought  of  is 
indisputably  clear  from  Ex.  xxxiv.  24,  where 
Israel  is  to  be  secure  from  the  danger  of  war  each 
time  during  the  period  of  the  Feast.  Thus  here 
also  a  more  definite  statement  of  time  is  requisite. 
How,  further,  can  we  explain,  without  an  exact 
date  for  the  Feasts,  the  name  "  Feast  of  Weeks  " 
(Ex.  xxxiv.  22).  Finally,  compare  Ex.  xxiii. 
I  5  and  xxxiv.  1 8. 

So  far,  this  result  has  come  to  us  for  Deut., 
that  both  the  name  "  Feast  of  Tabernacles "  as 
well  as  the  method  of  dating  the  Feasts  necessarily 
presuppose  the  enactments  of  P. 

Nothing,  however,  can  be  argued  from  the 
greater  number  of  Feasts  to  be  found  in  P, 
because  otherwise  the  Books  of  the  Covenant  and 
D  would  have  to  be  placed  after  Ezekiel,  inasmuch 
as  Ezekiel  mentions  only  two  principal  Feasts, 
the  first  and  the  third  (Ezek.  xlv.  18  and  foil.). 
That  there  could  be  at  any  rate  more  Feasts 
than  these  three,  although  they  are  not  mentioned 
in  Deut,  is  clear  from  the  fact  that  the  Feast  of 
the  New  Moon  is  attested  in  ancient  times  (see 
also  Hosea  ii.  11);  if  Deut,  however,  does  not 
mention  this,  it  may  just  as  well  have  known 
the  other  Feasts  of  PC  without  mentioning 
them. 

When,  moreover,  only  P,  but  none  of  the  other 


FEASTS  NOT  GLOOMY  IN  PC    187 

laws,  speaks  of  the  official  sacrifices  of  the 
congregation  (sec  Num.  xxviii.),  this  is  by  no 
means  an  argument  for  the  later  origin  of  P, 
but  is  simply  inherent  in  the  character  of  a  ritual 
legislation.  Conversely,  P  had  no  occasion  to 
speak  here  further  of  the  peace  offerings,  which 
had  been  already  regulated  by  it  in  another 
passage  (Lev.  vii.  1 1  and  foil.). 

It  is  clear  from  tradition,  besides,  that  it  is 
utterly  false  to  assume  a  gloomy  character  in  the 
formerly  joyous  Feasts  after  the  introduction  of 
PC  ;  according  to  it,  they  danced  even  on  the 
Day  of  Atonement.  The  employment  of  music, 
too,  will  not  harmonise  with  a  gloomy  character 
of  the  worship;  comp.  also  Joel  i.  i6,  if,  with 
the  critics,  this  prophet  is  put  after  the  Exile. 

With  this  we  close  this  section.  It  has  shown 
us  how  Deut.  necessarily  presupposes  almost  all 
the  laws  of  PC,  sacrificial  laws,  festival  laws, 
enactments  about  purity,  regulations  about  the 
staff  for  conducting  worship  and  their  obligations, 
the  ark  of  the  Covenant,  and  many  individual 
details.  On  that  point  we  can  in  the  first 
instance  leave  out  of  sight  the  date  of  Deut. 
We  now  proceed  to  deal  with  the  laws  which 
are  only  possible  if  PC  comes  at  the  time  of 
the  wandering  in  the  wilderness,  and  Deut.  in  the 
time  shortly  before  the  entrance  into  Palestine. 


188   ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

Laws  3.   We  begin  here  with  an  enactment  from  the 

■which  are  _ 

oniypos-    Laws   of   the   Feasts  which   so   far  we  have    left 

comes  at    untouched.       The    paschal    offering    is,  according 

the  time    to   PC   (Ex.  xii.   3   and  foll.^),  to  be  slain   in  the 
of  the  V  ^  /' 

wander-     houses,  and  this  too  on   the    14th   day  of  Nisan 
inginthe   .        .  •        /t-  ••     ^      t  •••  xt 

wilder-       m   the  evenmg  (Kx.  xn.  6  ;   Lev.  xxni.    5  ;   Num. 

DeS  ^^     xxviii.    1 6).      At   the    same   time    P    requires    an 

shortly       assembly    at    the   holy   place    (Lev.   xxiii.   6    and 

before  the  "^  ... 

entrance    foil.  ;    Num.    xxviii.    1 7    and    foil.).       This    enact- 

Palestine.  ment  was  certainly  possible  and  practicable  at 
the  time  of  the  wandering  in  the  wilderness  ;  but 
only  then.  After  the  wandering  it  was  impossible 
to  be  on  the  evening  of  the  14th  in  one's  home, 
and  on  the  15  th  in  Jerusalem.  Therefore  Deut. 
xvi.  5,  shortly  before  the  immigration,  does  away 
with  this  earlier  regulation  and  transfers  the  Pass- 
over also  to  the  sanctuary :  "  Thou  mayest  not 
sacrifice  the  passover  within  any  of  thy  gates, 
which  the  Lord  thy  God  giveth  thee ;  but  at 
the  place  which  the  Lord  thy  God  shall  choose 
to  place  his  name  in."  It  was  natural  that  the 
Passover  and  the  Feast  of  Unleavened  Bread 
were  now  blended  in  one  observance.  How  in 
all  the  world  could  PC,  if  it  was  only  post- 
Deuteronomic,  even  entertain  the  idea  of  altering 
this  Deuteronomic  enactment,  which  must  have 
been  quite  in  the  spirit  of  P,  and  of  putting  in  its 

1  Similarly  according  to  ver.  21  and  foil.,  yet  the  critics  do  not 
know  to  which  source  these  verses  are  to  be  ascribed. 


THE  CENTRAL  SANCTUARY  189 

place  another,  the   impracticability   of  which   was 

clear  from   the  outset  ?      As  a  matter  of  fact,  the 

Feast  of  the  Passover  and  Unleavened  Bread  was 

never  celebrated   after  the  Return   in   the   form  of 

P,  but  in  that  of  Deut. 

The   state    of   matters  is   quite   similar  in   the  The 

„         ,  .  .       central 

case  of  Lev.  xvii.   and   Deut.   xii.      On   this   pomt  sanctuary. 

we  refer  again  to  the  Books  of  the  Covenant.  If 
we  share  the  assumption  of  criticism,  above  dis- 
proved, that  it  is  permitted  by  Ex.  xx.  24  to  offer 
sacrifice  at  any  place  they  pleased,  it  is  in  the  first 
place  quite  clear  that  there  can  be  no  suggestion  of 
a  development  from  this  into  Deuteronomy,  which 
requires  the  service  at  a  single  place  ;  this  would 
be  no  development,  but  a  jump,  or,  as  Robertson 
quite  correctly  observes,  a  revolution,  an  over- 
throwing and  displacing  of  the  previous  stability. 
But  we  have  seen  above  (pp.  46,  47)  how  little 
modern  criticism  was  able  to  render  probable  the 
sudden  change  through  the  historical  conditions 
about  623.  At  the  very  time  when  the  temple 
at  Jerusalem  was  filled  with  the  emblems  of  the 
most  abominable  idolatry,  the  idea  of  a  concentra- 
tion of  worship  at  this  particular  sanctuary  must 
have  been  utterly  remote. 

To  come  back  to  Ex.  xx.  24,  it  is  now,  how- 
ever, neither  necessary  nor  advisable  to  understand 
the  passage  as  criticism  does.  If  we  saw  in  our 
preceding  section  that  the  Book   of  the  Covenant 


190  ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

itself  (xxiii.  1 5  and  foil.)  has  in  view  a  central 
sanctuary,  we  would  otherwise  imply  a  contradic- 
tion in  this  very  collection  of  laws.  Attention 
has  therefore  been  rightly  called  to  the  additional 
clause,  "  in  all  places  where  I  record  my  name,"  ^ 
and  also  to  the  singular  in  ver.  26,  "  my  altar,"  so 
that  that  passage  does  not  at  all  confirm  the  idea 
of  a  worship  to  be  observed  simultaneously  at 
different  places.  But  that  the  idea  of  worshipping 
God  at  one  place  had  anything  improbable  in  it 
at  the  time  of  Moses  we  have  disproved  above 
(see  pp.  46,  47). 
Well-  After  this  preface  let  us  pass  on  to  the  relation 

theory       between  Deut  and  P,  which  especially  interests  us. 
to\\e°^  A    warning  is   given    in    Deut.    xii.    1 3    and  foil. 

seventh      ag-ainst  offering  sacrifice  in  any  place  they  like  ; 
century         ^  ^  J'    r  /  ' 

every         this  must  only  be  done   at  the  central   sanctuary. 

killiusT 

was  a  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  allowed  to  kill  and  eat 
sacrifice.  ^^^^  everywhere,  on  condition  that  the  blood  is 
allowed  to  flow  away.  Wellhausen  and  his  school 
explain  the  passage  thus  : — Hitherto,  z.e.  down  to 
the  seventh  century,  every  killing  was  a  sacrifice. 
But  from  henceforth,  when  the  worship  is  to  be 
concentrated  at  one  place  and  the  nature  of  the 
case  forbids  the  bringing,  killing,  and  offering 
simultaneously  all  the  cattle  from  the  whole  land, 
a  distinction  is  made  between  sacrificing  and 
slaying.       Every    killing    is    not,    as    hitherto,   a 

^  See  the  note  on  p.  loi. 


A  BASELESS  THEORY        191 

sacrifice,  and  may  therefore  occur  at  any  place 
they  like  ;  the  real  sacrifices,  however,  must  no 
longer  be  offered  at  any  place  they  choose,  but 
only  at  the  central  sanctuary. 

But  the  assumption  here  made  that  before  623 
every  killing  was  looked  upon  as  a  sacrifice  is  not 
only  quite  incapable  of  proof,  but  exceedingly 
improbable.  The  existence  of  the  high  places 
proves  decisively,  as  far  as  I  can  see,  that  an 
ordinary  killing  was  not  in  itself  a  sacrifice,  but 
only  became  such  when  it  was  performed  there. 
Or  does  i  Sam.  xxviii.  24  produce  the  impression 
that  the  witch  of  Endor  offered  a  sacrifice  when 
she  slew  the  fat  calf  in  her  house,  took  flour  and 
kneaded  it,  and  baked  unleavened  bread,  in  order 
to  set  all  before  Saul  and  his  companions?  The 
same  may  be  said  of  similar  passages  in  the 
patriarchal  history,  in  which  the  conditions  of  the 
time  before  the  prophetic  writings  are  surely 
supposed  to  be  reflected.  Why,  then,  when  real 
sacrifices  are  in  question,  do  they  first  solemnly 
build  an  altar  (see  Gen.  xxii.  9)  ? 

But  if  a  distinction  was  made  before  623 
between  sacrificing  and  slaying,  then  the  passage 
Deut.  xii.  1 5  remains  a  puzzle.  What  is  the 
meaning  of  a  law  which  expressly  permits  what 
was  self-evident  for  every  one?  It  will  be  seen 
how  very  simply  and  naturally  it  is  explained  on 
the  assumption  of  the  genuineness  of  Deut.  and 


192  ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

the  priority  of  PC,  as  soon  as  we  have  discussed 
the  modern  view  of  Lev.  xvii.  and  also  rejected  it 
as  inherently  impossible. 

That  is  to  say,  admitting  that  the  Wellhausen 
school  was  right  in  its  certainly  false  exegesis  of 
Deut.  xii.  15,  yet  its  view  of  the  sequence  of  the 
laws  Deut.  and  P  would  break  down  at  Lev.  xvii. 
I  and  foil. 

For  here  it  would  be  once  again  laid  down 
that  every  killing  must  be  an  offering,  and  must 
therefore  take  place  at  the  central  sanctuary. 
Such  an  enactment  could  not  possibly  be  given 
at  the  time  of  the  Exile,  if  they  had  any  idea  of 
introducing  PC  ;  but  that  was  done,  as  we  saw, 
and  therefore  such  an  "  unpractical "  regulation,  as 
Wellhausen  (p.  52)  calls  it,  is  the  best  proof  that 
the  whole  hypothesis  is  false.  Even  after  the 
return  from  the  Exile  most  of  the  Israelites  were 
much  too  far  removed  from  Jerusalem  to  be  able 
to  obey  this  enactment  and  actually  to  kill  all 
sacrificial  animals  at  the  central  sanctuary. 
Besides,  they  had  still  a  quite  definite  hope  of 
occupying  the  whole  land.  All  Israel  must, 
according  to  this  enactment,  have  been  continually 
on  the  road  ;  yet  PC  attached  to  its  transgression 
the  punishment  of  death  (Lev.  xvii.  4)  and 
appointed  this  law  as  a  statute  for  ever  (ver.  7,  b). 
It  is  only  intelligible  during  the  wandering  in  the 
wilderness,  when  every  animal  killed  in  the  camp 


EARLIER  LAW  ABROGATED    193 

could  actually  be  brought  to  the  tabernacle  of  the 

congregation.^ 

Now,  however,   that   passage  in   Deut.  xii.    i  5  The  per- 
1    r  11      .      r  1        n  ■  •        ii-    -1  i  1  missioii  ill 

and  foil.   IS   for   the   first   time    intelligible ;    here,  peut.  xii. 

shortly  before  the  immigration,  that  regulation  of  anywh^r 

Lev.  xvii.  is  expressly  abroe:ated,  because  it  proved  proves 

^  J  ^  '  ^  that  Deut. 

impracticable  for  the  future  to   kill  everything  at  was  later 

the  central  sanctuary,  and  thus  Deut.  permits  the 

killing  at  any  place  they  liked,  and   only  requires 

that  the  sacrifices  are  still  to  be  performed  at  the 

central    sanctuary.       We    see    how    simply    and 

naturally   both    passages    are    explained,   both   in 

themselves  and  in  their  relation  to  one  another,  if 

we  leave  the  laws  in  the  place  where  they  profess 

to  have  originated.      If  we  compare  with  this   the 

constantly  artificial  and  impossible  explanation  of 

both  passages  on  the  part  of  criticism — and   this 

again,  too,  both  in  themselves  and  in  their  relation 

to  one  another — it  cannot  be   difficult  to  decide 

in  favour  of  the  Biblical  view. 

That  Deut.  xii.  is  to   be   referred   to  Lev.  xvii., 

and  that  the  converse  relationship  does  not  exist, 

is   abundantly  confirmed    by   the  fact  that   Deut. 

^  Besides,  if  Lev.  xvii.  is  from  the  time  of  Moses,  it  is  self- 
evident  that  the  command  for  erection  of  the  tabernacle  of  the 
congregation,  the  erection  itself,  regulations  about  its  care  and  the 
sacrifices  to  be  offered  in  it,  about  the  staff  for  the  services,  etc. ,  were 
not  only  possible,  but  probable  and  necessary  for  that  time  ;  for  all 
this  is  presupposed  in  the  passage  before  us,  so  that  once  more 
there  follow  from  this  the  most  far-reaching  conclusions  for  the 
genuineness  of  PC. 

O 


194   ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

xii.  I  5  contains  a  regulation  at  the  end  of  it  which 

is  unintelligible  without  Lev.  xvii.  1 3.      For  here, 

as  well  as  in  xii.  22,  xv.  22,  the  method  of  dealing 

with   the   non-sacrificial   animals  ^   is   presupposed 

as  well   known,  and   this   we  find   stated  only  in 

Lev.  xvii.  i  3.      According  to   P  also,  wild  beasts, 

in  contrast  to  the   sacrificial   animals  which  were 

to  be   brought  to  the  central  sanctuary  and  must 

be  offered  there,  were  to  be  everywhere  hunted 

and  eaten  ;  now  Deut.  puts  the  sacrificial  animals 

on  a  level  with  the  wild   beasts  and   lays  it  down 

that  they  may  be  eaten,  even  as  the  roebuck  and 

the  hart.      The  further  instruction  that  the  blood 

must  in  this  case  be  poured  out   upon   the  earth 

is  found  in  Deut.  xii.  as  in   Lev.  xvii.,  but  without 

involving  any  further  inference  from  it  than   that 

Deut.  xii.  and  Lev.  xvii.  must  have  some  connexion 

with  one  another. 

The  re-  Further,  a  third  law  is  only  intelligible  if  PC 

of  the  ^°^  actually  originated  at  the  time  of  the  wandering 

first-born  [^   ^^^q  wilderness,  and   Deut.,  on   the  other  hand, 
mDeut.  '  '  ' 

xiv.  shows  shortly  before  the  immigration  ;  we  allude  to  the 

be  later      differing   enactments   about   the    first-born.       PC 

than  PC.    i-equii-es  ^j^^t  the  first-born  themselves  be  given  to 

Jahwe  (Lev.  xxvii.   26,   27  ;   Num.   xviii.    15-18) 

and    expressly    forbids    their    redemption    (Num. 

xviii.  17),  unless  in  the  case  of  unclean  beasts  or 

the  first-born  of  men.      Deut.  xiv.  23  and  foil.,  on 

^  Sacrificial  animals  are  cattle,  sheep,  goats. 


LAWS  ABOUT  THE  FIIIST-BORN  195 

the  other  hand,  expressly  permits  this  redemption: 
"7/"  the  way  be  too  loiig  for  thee,  so  that  thou  art 
not  able  to  carry  it,  or  if  the  place  be  too  far  from 
thee  which  the  Lord  thy  God  shall  choose  to  set 
his  name  there,  when  the  Lord  thy  God  hath 
blessed  thee,  then  thou  shalt  turn  it  into  money 
.  .  .  and  thou  shalt  bestow  that  money  for  what- 
soever thy  soul  lusteth  after,  for  oxen  or  for  sheep, 
.  .  .  and  thou  shalt  eat  there  before  the  Lord  thy 
God."  Here  also  it  is  true  that  the  enactments 
of  P  could  only  be  obeyed  in  the  time  of  the 
wandering  in  the  wilderness  ;  for  only  then  was  it 
possible  to  give  up  to  Jahwe  all  first-born  creatures 
themselves.  Deut.,  on  the  other  hand,  has  regard 
to  the  circumstances  after  the  immigration.-^ 

The  other  important  difference,  that  according 
to  P  the  first-born  of  animals  is  to  be  eaten  by 
the  priest,  but  according  to  Deut.  by  the  owner, 
his  family  and  his  guests,  leads  us  to  the  next 
section.  Deut.  could  alter  P  on  this  point,  in 
order  to  make  appearing  at  the  sanctuary  more 
agreeable  to  the  Israelites,  and  also  because  after 
the  immigration  the  priests  received  important 
revenues  from  agriculture  (see  Num.  xviii.).  This 
is   certainly  a    better   explanation    than   that    the 

^  Besides,  P  exactly  corresponds  with  the  enactment  of  the  Book 
of  the  Covenant  (Ex.  xxii.  29)  which  commanded  the  first-born  to 
be  given  to  Jahwe  on  the  eighth  day  ;  Deut.  xv.  19  and  foil.,  on  the 
other  hand,  implies  that  the  dedication  did  not  need  to  take  place 
until  a  bullock  might  be  put  to  work  and  a  sheep  shorn. 


196   ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

priests  should  have  simply  annexed  the  first-born 
during  the  Exile ;  against  that  the  Israelites, 
making  appeal  to  Deut,  would  have  energetically 
protested.  The  remaining  small  differences  are  too 
unimportant  for  us  to  linger  over  them,  and  do 
not  in  any  case  afford  any  argument  in  favour  of 
the  later  date  of  PC. 


Diffi- 
cnlties 
which 
are  in- 
explicable 
except 
on  the  as- 
sumption 
of  the 
priority 
of  PC. 


Distinc- 
tion 
between 
priests 
and 
Levites. 


4.  In  this  section,  finally,  the  differences  are  to 
be  elucidated,  which  may  be  well  explained  on 
the  assumption  of  the  priority  of  PC  and  the 
genuineness  of  PC  and  Deut. — both  of  these  things 
being  rendered  probable  by  our  former  inquiries 
and  suggested  by  the  Biblical  representation  ; 
otherwise  these  difficulties  remain  absolutely  in- 
explicable. 

In  proof  of  the  priority  of  Deut.  we  are,  it  is 
true,  referred  with  great  assurance  to  the  fact  that 
it  knows  nothing  of  the  distinction  between  priests 
and  Levites,  whereas  Ezekiel  introduces  it  (chap, 
xliv.)  and  P  assumes  it  as  self-evident.  Now  we 
have  seen  in  our  discussion  of  the  connexion  of 
Ezekiel  with  the  Priestly  Code  (see  §  2)  that 
Ezekiel  cannot  possibly  have  first  introduced  it, 
but  presupposes  it ;  but  then  the  relation  of  Deut. 
to  P  on  this  point  must  remain  utterly  obscure, 
unless  we  keep  to  the  Biblical  view. 

As  a  matter  of  fact  the  circumstances  are  so 
put  in  Deut.  that  it  would  be  difficult  to  infer  from 


PRIESTS  AND  LE\  ITES       197 

it  the  distinction,  if  we  had  only  Deut.^  Thus,  e.g.^ 
in  Deut  x.  8,  xxxiii.  8  and  foil.,  the  various 
duties  which  according  to  P  also  belong  indeed 
to  the  tribe  of  Levi,  but  appear  distributed  among 
high -priests,  priests,  and  ordinary  Levites,  are 
assigned  without  any  subdivision  to  the  whole 
tribe  of  Levi.  The  question  here,  however,  is  not 
in  the  first  instance  whether  the  distinctions  within 
the  priestly  office  appear  in  Deut.,  but  rather 
whether  they  are  excluded  by  Deut.  whilst  they 
profess  to  be  previously  introduced  by  P  ;  and  this 
is  not  the  case.  Or  do  we  exclude  military 
distinctions  when  we  speak  of  "  soldiers  "  ?  Just 
as  little  should  we  ascribe  to  the  Israelites  such  a 
deduction  from  the  passages  in  question  about  the 
tribe  of  Levi,  when  the  distinction  between  high- 
priests,  priests,  and  Levites  was  current  among 
them  through  PC.  In  Deut,  where  the  subject 
was  not  an  address  to  the  tribe  of  Levi  in  particular, 
but  a  parting  word  to  the  whole  people,  for  whom 
the  contrast  of  the  tribe  of  Levi  with  the  other 
tribes  was  incomparably  more  important  than  the 
distinction  within  this  tribe,  Moses  could  speak 
more  generally  and  comprehensively.  If,  notwith- 
standing this,  we  conclude  from  the  state  of  affairs 
in  Deut.  that  the  distinction  could  not  yet  have 
been  in  existence  at  that  time,  let  us  be  consistent 

^  At   most,  chap,   xxvii.   9,  14,  compared   with  ver.   12,  can  be 
adduced. 


198   ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

and  draw  a  similar  conclusion  for  the  time  of 
Malachi,  in  whose  case  the  circumstances  were 
quite  analogous  ;  for  according  to  Mai.  ii.  i  and 
foil,  (see  especially  vers.  4  and  8)  and  iii.  3,  these 
distinctions  could  not  yet  have  existed  then  either 
within  the  tribe  of  Levi,  and  all  Levites  must  still 
have  been  priests;  but  criticism  quite  calmly  allows 
the  distinction  to  have  existed  since  the  year  573 
(Ez.  xliv.  4  and  foil.),  and  at  least  since  the  first 
return  from  the  Exile  in  538  (see  Ezra  ii.  36,  40  ; 
Neh.  vii.  39,  43),  whereas  Malachi  can,  at  the 
earliest,  be  placed  about  500.  What  is  right  for 
Malachi  is  permissible  in  Deut. 

The  passages  in  Malachi  also  prove  most 
decidedly  that  a  distinction  between  priests  and 
Levites  is  not  excluded  even  by  the  Deuteronomic 
expression :  D)^hrf  D^DrrBn  (e.^.  Deut.  xviii.  i )} 
For  this  emphasising  of  the  descent  of  the  priests 
from  the  tribe  of  Levi  is  also  found  in  Malachi, 
without  being  regarded  by  criticism  as  rendering 
the  distinction  impossible  there.  But  even  with- 
out this  most  striking  refutation,  we  cannot  see 
how  this  emphasising  of  the  Levitical  descent  of 
the  priests  can  be  adduced  at  all  against  a 
division  within  the  tribe  of  Levi.  Ezekiel,  after 
he  has  just  mentioned  the  distinction  in  xliv.  4 
and  foil.,  retains  the  description  "  the  priests  the 
Levites"  for  the  sons  of  Zadok  (ver.  15);  similarly 

^  i.e.  "the  Levitical  Priesthood";  comp.  Heb.  vii,  11. 


BEFORE  VIIth  CENTURY    199 

the  expression  is  found  even  in  Jer.  xxxiii.  1 8, 
a  passage  which  is  inconsistently  placed  much 
later  by  the  moderns — nay,  even  in  Chronicles,  e.g. 
2  Chron.  xxx.  27,  where  it  could  certainly  not  be 
found  if  the  assumptions  of  criticism  were  correct. 
The  arbitrariness  and  inconsistency  of  the  Well- 
hausen  school  are  most  clearly  shown  on  this 
point. 

If,  moreover,  Deut.  originated  in  the  seventh 
century  and  is  to  be  regarded  as  referring  to  existing 
conditions,  the  untenableness  of  the  view  according 
to  which  there  were  as  yet  no  distinctions  in  the 
spiritual  office  would  follow  even  from  this.  We 
have  already  called  attention  above  to  the  fact 
that  in  2  Kings  xxii.  4  and  8  Hilkiah  is  called 
"  high-priest "  (see  also  xxiii.  4),  and  that  this  can 
only  be  set  aside  by  a  stroke  of  violence  on  the 
part  of  criticism  (see  p.  147).  Further,  the 
position  of  an  Eli  (i  Sam.  i  and  foil.),  of  an 
Ahimelech  (i  Sam.  xxi.,  xxii.),  of  a  Zadok  and  an 
Abiathar,  proves  indisputably  that  there  was  a 
distinction  within  the  priestly  office  even  before 
the  seventh  century.  The  same  follows  from  Jer. 
XX.  I  ;  xxix.  25,  26,  29;  Hi.  24.  And  even  if 
Deut.  had  connected  itself  with  the  existing  cir- 
cumstances, it  could  not  possibly  act  as  if  there 
were  no  distinction  within  the  priestly  office.  Let 
us  also  recall  the  fact  that  in  Ez.  xliv.  4  and 
foil,  regulations  about  the  inferior  staff  for  service 


200  ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

must  have  been  assumed  as  well  known.  Similarly 
Deut.  X.  8,  xviii.  2,  xxxiii.  8,  made  it  absolutely 
necessary  that  minute  regulations  about  the  tribe 
of  Levi  had  already  been  found.  In  xviii.  2  there 
was  surely  a  direct  reference  to  Num.  xviii.  20, 
24,  and  therefore  to  P.  But  then  Deut.  must 
necessarily  have  been  acquainted  with  the  distinc- 
tion between  high -priests,  priests,  and  Levites. 
But  if,  in  reply,  we  are  pointed  to  the  fact  that 
the  inferior  Levites  are  nowhere  mentioned  in  the 
history,  the  question  at  once  suggests  itself  whether 
it  was  necessary  that  they  should  be  mentioned, 
i.e.  whether  their  not  being  mentioned  is  enough 
to  prove  their  non-existence.  But  then  there  are 
actually  passages  in  which  the  Levites  are 
mentioned  (see  Judges  xvii.,  xviii.  ;  xix.-xxi.  ;  I 
Sam.  vi.  1 5  ;  2  Sam.  xv.  24;  I  Kings  viii.  4); 
only  they  have  been  treated  after  the  approved 
pattern. 

We  remain  therefore  of  the  opinion  that  even 
this  point  does  not  exclude  the  priority  of  PC, 
and  the  genuineness  of  PC  and  Deut. ;  nay,  that 
it  is  only  in  this  way  that  we  can  explain  at  all 
the  apparent  difference  between  the  two  legisla- 
tions. According  to  modern  criticism  a  real 
difference  exists,  which  it  is  not  able  to  solve, 
since  it  has  demonstrated  the  connecting  link  in 
Ez.  xliv.  to  be  unsuitable  and  useless. 

The  case  is  quite  similar  also  with  the  difference 


LAWS  ABOUT  TITHE         201 

in  regard  to  the  tithe.      P   requires  a  tithe,  which  The  differ- 

was  to  be  paid  yearly  to  the  Levites,  who  in  turn  tween  PC 

had  to  give  up  a  tenth  to  the  priests  (Lev.  xxvii.  ^^^  ^®^*- 

30-33  ;   Num.  xviii.  20-22).      Deut.,  on  the  other  to  the 

tithe, 
hand,  mentions   another  tithe  (Deut.  xiv.  22-29  ; 

xxvi.    12-15);   according   to    these    passages    the 

tithe  is  to  be  consumed  at  the  sanctuary  two  years 

in   succession,   but   in   every   third    year   is    to   be 

given   to   the   Levites.       If  we   depart   from    the 

Biblical  date  of  the  sources,  we  lose  once  more  all 

possibility  of  explaining  how  the  one   legislation 

could    completely    ignore   the    other   and    deviate 

from  it  without  explanation — whether  we  regard 

Deut.  or  P  as  the  earlier. 

If  we  abide  by  the  Biblical  date,  Deut  would 
add  a  second  tithe.  In  support  of  the  correctness 
of  our  view  we  may  adduce  the  text  of  the 
Septuagint,  which  in  Deut.  xxvi.  12  reads  to 
Bevrepov  iirtheicaTov  ;  and  similarly  the  history,  for 
in  the  Greek  text  of  the  Book  of  Tobit  we  read 
(chap.  i.  7)  :  t^]v  SeKcirrjv  iBlSovv  tol<;  VLol<i  Aevl 
T0?9  OepairevovaLV  eh  'lepovaakTJ/jL,  koI  rrjv  Bev- 
repav  SeKurijv  aTreirpaTL^Ofjirjv,  koI  iiropevo/jirjv 
Kal  iSaTrdvcov  avra  iv  'l6povo-a\vfxoi<;  Ka6'  eKaarov 
evLavTov. 

Even  the  difference  between  Lev.  vii.  29-34 
and  Deut.  xviii.  3  is,  if  these  enactments  refer  at 
all  to  the  same  subject,  quite  inadequate  to 
warrant   any   conclusions    in    favour   of  the   later 


202   ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT  ? 

date  of  PC.  According  to  the  former  passage 
the  priests  receive  from  the  peace  offerings  the 
breast  and  the  right  thigh  (see  R.V.)  ;  according 
to  Deut.,  on  the  other  hand,  only  a  fore-shoulder, 
the  two  cheeks  and  the  maw.  Now  if  Deut.  is 
late,  and  PC  also,  it  is  unintelligible  how  the 
enactment  could  have  been  simply  altered,  for  the 
injured  Israelites,  i.e.  priests,  would  in  any  case 
have  entered  their  protest,  appealing  to  the  other 
legislation.  The  difference  is  best  explained  if 
Moses  himself  undertook  the  alteration,  having 
observed  that  the  priests  were  henceforth  richly 
enough  provided  for  by  the  revenue  from  agri- 
culture. If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  ni|  in 
Deut.  xviii.  3  refers  to  the  killing,  as  in  xii.  15, 
for  example,  the  difference  from  P  disappears 
altogether. 

We  have  thus  discussed  the  most  important 
deviations  between  P  and  Deut.  and  have  seen 
how  they  either  prove  nothing  in  favour  of  the 
sequence  in  time  of  Deut. — P  (see  §§  i  and  4)  or 
even  require  the  converse  relationship  (§  2),  but  in 
many  respects  only  become  possible  and  intelligible 
at  all  if  both  legislations  are  ascribed  to  the 
Mosaic  period,  in  which  they  profess  to  have 
originated,  in  the  Biblical  sequence  P — Deut.  (§  3 
and  part  of  4).  If  we  add  the  passages  dealt 
with  under  8  2,  which  require  the  priority  of  PC, 


RESULTS  ARRIVED  AT      203 

there  can  no  longer  be  any  doubt  that  the  modern 
sequence  D — PC  is  untenable. 

In  order  to  avoid  misunderstandings,  let  us 
here  once  more  expressly  state  that  we  only  have 
in  view  the  two  collections  of  laws  as  a  whole,  and 
in  each  case  only  consider  the  kernel  and  essential 
structure,  without  therefore  wishing  to  dispute 
from  the  outset  that  individual  laws  may  have 
been  possibly  incorporated  later. 


Conclusion 

Let   us  sum   up  what  has   been   arrived  at  as  Sum- 
,  mary  of 

a  result.  previous 

1.  Ezekiel   xl.-xlviii.,  in   itself  unsuited   to   be  ^^&^®^*- 
included  in  a  development  of  collections  of  laws, 
requires  nevertheless  the  priority  of  PC  (see  "  The 
relation  of  Ezekiel  to  the  Priestly  Code  "). 

2.  If  we  compare  Deut.  with  PC,  it  is  clear,  on 
the  one  hand,  that  no  argument  can  be  deduced 
from  the  more  minute  enactments  of  PC  in  favour 
of  its  posteriority,  because  it  professes  to  be  a 
ritual  legislation,  which  Deut.  does  not.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  priority  of  PC  is  expressly 
demanded  by  many  passages  of  Deut.  as  well  as 
by  a  comparison  with  the  latter  (see  "  Comparison 
of  the  Laws  with  one  another").  From  this  it 
would   equally  follow  that  even  with  the   modern 


204   ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT  ? 

date  of  Deut.  the    Priestly  Code  is  at  least  not 
post-exilic. 

3.  The  same  result  was  arrived  at  when  we 
compared  PC  with  the  time  at  which  it  is  supposed 
to  have  originated  (see  "  Criticism  of  the  modern 
date  of  PC  ")• 

4.  The  result  of  our  first  inquiry  carried  us 
still  farther,  inasmuch  as  it  showed  that  it  is  quite 
impossible  for  Deut.  to  have  arisen  in  the  seventh 
century  (see  "  Criticism  of  the  modern  date  of 
Deut.").  Now  the  farther  back  Deut.  must  be 
placed,  the  farther  back  the  Priestly  Code  must 
go  with  it,  since  according  to  §  2  the  latter  is 
older  than  Deut. 

This  is  the  result  of  our  inquiry,  so  far  as  it 
related  to  the  consequences  of  the  Graf-Wellhausen 
hypothesis. 

At  the  same  time,  however,  it  has  disclosed 
the  weaknesses  of  modern  critical  methods  and 
auxiliary  hypotheses.  They  are  useless,  because, 
if  consistently  carried  out,  they  prove  not  only 
that  the  Biblical  representation  of  Israelitish 
history  is  untenable,  but  that  the  modern  con- 
struction of  history  is  quite  as  much  so  ;  in  fact 
they  make  all  positive  science  of  history  a  priori 
impossible. 

Let  us  once  more  go  through  these  principles 
and  supplementary  hypotheses  in  order. 

I.  Criticism  sees  in  the  non-mention  of  a  law 


CRITICAL  PRINCIPLES       205 

a  proof  of  its  non-existciicc  ;  but  then  also  the 
Books  of  the  Covenant  are  impossible  before  the 
Exile  (see  "  Criticism  of  the  modern  date  of  the 
Books  of  the  Covenant  "). 

2.  Criticism  sees  in  the  general  violation  of  a 
law  a  proof  of  its  non-existence  ;  but  then,  again, 
the  Books  of  the  Covenant,  and  also  Deut.,  are 
impossible  before  the  Exile. 

3.  Criticism  does  violence  to  the  text  and 
treats  all  traces  of  Deut.  before  623  and  of  P 
before  444  as  impossible.  Here  there  is  a 
circulus  vitiosus.  In  this  fashion  we  might  bring 
PC  down  to  a  later  date  than  444  and  Deut. 
later  than  623. 

4.  Criticism  assumes  that  the  editing  of  the 
history  of  the  Israelites  not  merely  regards  it 
from  particular  standpoints,  but  invents  it  ;  in 
that  case  2  Kings  xxii.,  xxiii.  and  Neh.  viii.-x. 
belong  also  to  these  inventions. 

5.  The  polemic  of  the  prophets  against 
sacrifices  makes  the  existence  of  PC  at  that  time 
impossible  ;  but  then  the  same  would  be  true  of 
the  existence  of  the  Books  of  the  Covenant  and 
Deuteronomy. 

6.  Ezekiel  xl.-xlviii.  demands,  on  account  of 
its  deviations  from  PC,  the  later  date  of  the 
latter  ;  but  then  the  same  would  hold  good  of  the 
Books  of  the  Covenant  and  Deuteronomy. 

7.  The  impression  of  the  novelty  of  Deut.  in 


206  ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

2  Kings  xxii.,  xxiii.  obliges  us  to  conclude  that  it 
was  only  written  shortly  before  623  ;  but  then 
also  the  Books  of  the  Covenant  could  not  have 
existed  before  that  time.  The  impression  of  the 
novelty  of  PC  in  Neh.  viii.-x.  necessitates  the 
conclusion  that  it  was  only  produced  shortly 
before  444  ;  but  since,  according  to  Wellhausen, 
the  Books  of  the  Covenant  and  Deut.  were 
promulgated  at  the  same  time  with  it,  the  same 
conclusion  must  be  applicable  to  them. 

With  §§  2-7  compare  "  Criticism  of  the  modern 
date  of  Deuteronomy,"  §  i  ;  the  whole  of  the 
second  section  of  "  Criticism  of  the  modern  date 
of  PC,"  "  Criticism  of  the  modern  auxiliary 
hypotheses,"  and  the  first  section  of  "  Criticism  of 
the  modern  result,"  §  I. 
The  con-  By    way    of   appendix,   further,   we    variously 

criticism*  pointed   out  that   many  of  the   modern   critics  do 

make  the   ^^^  ^jg]-^  ^q  deny  the  revelation,  but  admit  it.^      If 
ideSi  01  Bi 

revelation  by  this    we   are    to    understand   revelation    in   its 
untenable.  .   ,  -     ,       ,  .  r        -,  •         ■ 

special  sense  of  the  history  of  redemption,  it  was 

difficult  for  us  to  conceive  how  it  could  be 
seriously  held,  if  we  cannot  get  beyond  a  con- 
scious refined  falsification  in  connexion  with  the 
origin    of    Deut.    and    P    (see    "  Criticism   of    the 

^  It  is  indeed  often  questionable  whether  they  go  beyond  a 
guidance  of  God  such  as  takes  place  even  in  profane  history.  If 
we  could  not  under  any  circumstances  be  content  with  this  for  the 
New  Testament  revelation,  then  we  can  scarcely  accept  it  for  its 
preliminary  stages. 


REVELATION  IMPOSSIBLE      207 

modern  date  of  Deut.,"  p.  50,  and  "Criticism  of 
the  modern  result "  in  the  discussion  about  P,  p. 
94) ;  if  in  particular  Ezekiel  and  the  authors  of 
P  play  such  a  doubtful  part  on  the  subject  of  the 
Levites  (see  "  The  relation  of  Ezekiel  to  P,"  §  2)  ; 
if  the  authors  of  P  give  such  scope  to  egoistical 
motives  in  their  writing,  inasmuch  as  they  in- 
crease their  revenues  immeasurably  ;  if,  finally, 
the  prophets  come  before  us  in  a  peculiar  light, 
inasmuch  as,  notwithstanding  appearances  to  the 
contrary,  they  do  not  come  forward  in  the 
attitude  of  reformers,  but  bring  new  ideas  and  at 
the  same  time  make  moral  and  religious  re- 
proaches against  the  people,  which,  considering 
the  lower  platform  on  which  the  latter  still  stood, 
were  not  deserved.^  In  short,  if  lying  and  decep- 
tion have  a  share  every  time  that  new  forces 
arise  in  the  development,  it  is  only  a  well-meant 
self-deception  to  believe  that  we  can  hold  to  a 
revelation  along  with  this  ;  this  self-deception  must, 
however,  be  the  more  unhesitatingly  exposed  the 
more  dangerous  it  is,  and  the  more,  under  its 
protection,  the  foundation  on  which  we  stand  is 
undermined. 

When,  finally,  modern  criticism  boasted  that  it 
had  proved  a  development  in  the  history  of  Israel, 

^  The  last  point  is  only  mentioned  in  one  passage  in  our  discus- 
sion (see  "  Relation  of  Ezekiel  xl.-xlviii.  to  the  Priestly  Code,"  §  2, 
a)y  but  it  plays  an  important  part  in  modern  Old  Testament 
theology. 


208   ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT  ? 

so  that  the  different  laws  had  always  corresponded 
to  the  maturity  of  the  people,  on  this  point  also 
we  had  to  maintain  an  attitude  of  denial.  Even 
if  we  accept  the  Graf-Wellhausen  hypothesis,  the 
people  would  never  have  been  able  to  grasp,  in 
their  necessity  and  wholesomeness,  the  new  legal 
enactments  which  were  introduced,  or  to  produce 
them  entirely  of  their  own  accord.  Deut.  as  well 
as  P  would  have  always  reflected  only  the  ideal  of 
some  few,  and  therefore  would  at  first,  at  least, 
have  met  with  no  sympathy  ;  after  the  flaring  up 
of  a  fire  of  straw  the  people  would  have  not  only 
sunk  into  indifference  again,  but  would  have 
violated  the  new  laws  as  if  they  were  not  in 
existence  ;  the  Books  of  the  Covenant  had 
previously  met  with  precisely  the  same  fate. 

Moreover,  it  is  not  the  case  that  according  to 
criticism  the  result  of  the  development  had  already 
existed  in  iiuce  at  the  beginning  of  the  Israelitish 
history,  so  that  all  that  followed  was  only  a 
necessary  growth  from  the  slumbering  germ — it 
is  only  then  that  we  can  speak  of  a  development 
— rather,  it  is  external  circumstances  by  which  the 
progress  is  determined  from  step  to  step.  Nay, 
the  new  elements  would  have  emerged  at  times 
when  they  could  not  be  understood  at  all ;  thus 
the  idea  of  concentration  of  worship  at  the  very 
time  when  the  most  abominable  idolatry  was 
practised  at  the  central  sanctuary,  the  thought  of 


MET  ON  THEIR  OWN  GROUND  209 

Levitism  at  a  time  when  it  had  been  shown  that 
the  outward  observance  of  rules  of  worship  was 
not  the  slightest  help,  and  in  which  there  was  no 
inclination  whatever  to  Levitism  (see  "  Criticism 
of  the  modern  result"  on  Deut.,  §  i,  and  on  PC, 
^§  2  and  4).  Just  as  little  is  a  really  organic 
development  of  the  laws  from  one  another  to  be 
established  ;  here  also  nothing  but  contradictions 
and  jumps  ! 

Thus  far  our  negative  result,  on  which  the 
whole  emphasis  of  the  work  rests. 

We  have  arrived  at  it  throughout  from  the 
ground  of  the  critics  ;  for  we  have  in  every  case 
shared  their  assumptions  at  first.  We  have  taken 
the  modern  "  sources  "  as  the  basis,  and  assumed 
that  they  can  really  be  so  cleanly  divided  and 
dated,  which  has  become  the  more  improbable  to 
me  the  longer  I  study  it.  We  have  admitted 
the  editings  of  the  history,  e.g.  the  Deuteronomist 
editing  of  the  Books  of  Kings,  although  we  are 
firmly  convinced  that  here  at  least  there  is  very 
often  a  circulus  vitiosus  ;  for  Deut.  is  first  of  all 
placed  so  late  because  no  traces  exist,  and  then 
the  traces  are  ascribed  to  a  later  time  because 
Deut.  only  originated  shortly  before  ^2^.  We 
have,  finally,  disregarded  entirely  the  dogmatic 
standpoint,  and  have  proceeded  on  purely 
historical  lines. 

If  on  all  sides  we  find  ourselves  thus  in 
P 


210  ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT  ? 

Well-         antagonism    to    the    modern   hypothesis,  we  will 
conciu^**    not,  however,  deny  to  Wellhausen  all  merit,  even 

sions         though  it  is  essentially  of  a  negative  character  :  it 
serve  to  ^  ^  &  ' 

destroy      consists,  in  my  opinion,  in  this  chiefly,  that  he  has 

his  whole     ,  ,       ,  ,      .  r  i 

theory.       drawn  the  last  conclusions  from  the  assumptions 

about   which,  before    him,  there   was   agreement. 

He  has  crowned  the  whole  ;  but  the  crown  is  too 

heavy   and    must   crush   the   whole.       It   will    be 

necessary,  therefore,  to  proceed  to  a  new  building, 

and  many  stones  from  the  previous  building  may 

be  employed  in  it.      And  if  our  work  has  been  in 

its  whole  tendency  essentially  destructive,  yet  it 

has    aimed   at    preparing    a    place    for    the    new 

building,  and  has  already  given  at  least  some  hints 

for  it.     Thus,  in   the  inquiry  about    Deut.  (§  5), 

and  on  P  ("  Criticism  of  the  modern  result,"  §§  3 

and  6),  and  similarly  in  that  on  the  relation  of  both 

laws  to  one  another  (see  the  last  inquiry,  §  3),  we 

came  across  quite  a  number  of  important  laws  which 

defy  all  attempts  at  explanation,  if  we  do  not  admit 

that  they  really  originated  in  the  time  of  Moses. 

Above  all,  it  has  also  been  shown  how  utterly 

impossible    it   is,   in   view   of  the  very  deviations 

and   contradictions   of   the    individual  collections 

of   laws,  to  comprehend    the    Mosaic   dress    and 

the    success   in   the  introduction  of  Deut.  and   P, 

so  long  as  we  do  not  assume  at  least  a  genuine 

basis   for    all    three    legal  sections.       And    these 

original    stems   must   certainly  have   included    all 


EDITING  POSSIBLE  211 

essential  parts,  so  that  they  could  form  centres 
of  crystallisation  for  laws  which  might  be  added 
later  (see  the  inquiry  about  Deut.,  §§  2,  3,  and  4  ; 
inquiry  about  PC,  "  Criticism  of  the  modern  result," 
§§  2,  3,  4,  and  5  ;  inquiry  about  the  Books  of  the 
Covenant,  §  2  ;  and,  finally,  the  inquiry  on  the 
relation  of  the  laws  to  one  another,  §  3). 

Granting,  then,  that  there  are  laws  and  enact- 
ments which  necessarily  point  to  a  later  time  and 
appear  as  further  improvements  of  the  original, 
and  were  therefore  incorporated  according  to 
practical  needs,  we  have  at  any  rate  a  rational 
explanation,  which  criticism  does  not  give  us,  how 
these  laws  also  came  to  be  ascribed  to  Moses. 
In  the  same  way  we  may  institute  inquiries 
whether  the  codification  of  the  laws  may  not  have 
been,  in  part  at  least,  carried  out  in  later  times.^ 
It  is  clear,  at  any  rate,  that  even  then  the  picture 
of  the  history  of  Israel  would  be  a  totally  different 
one  from  that  which  is  drawn  by  Wellhausen. 
Above  all,  the  inquiries  about  a  possible  later 
codification,  postscripts,  etc.,  would  only  touch 
subordinate  points,  whereas  these  literary-critical, 
more  or  less  subjective  discussions  unfortunately 
touch  at  once  the  centre,  and  must  continue  to 
do  so,  so  long  as  the  Wellhausen  hypothesis  is 
not  refuted  ;  all  individual  Old  Testament  teaching 

^  The  Priestly  Code,  e.g.,  nowhere  claims  to  have  been  written 
by  Moses. 


212  ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

depends  upon  them  and  is  influenced  by  them. 
Similarly  we  might  be  able  calmly  to  admit  that 
the  historical  narratives  in  the  Pentateuch  were 
wrought  together  from  original  sources,  so  long  as 
their  essential  contents  are  not  shown  to  be 
unhistorical,  and  criticism  has  not  yet  succeeded 
in  doing  this.  Here,  too,  it  is  true  that  these 
inquiries  must  occupy  a  subordinate  place,  because 
it  will  never  be  possible  to  attain  sure  results. 
In  the  first  place,  it  is  very  unlikely  that  we 
should  ever  be  able  definitely  to  separate  the 
original  sources  ;  just  consider  that  we  have  at 
once  to  do  with  not  only  J,  E,  D,  P,  but  with  J^ 

and  J^,  E^  and  E^,  P^ .  .  2  •  •  •  3 ;  and  in  the 

same  way  with  different  sources  in  Deut. ;  ^  to 
these  would  be  added  the  various  editors.  Con- 
sider, further,  the  close  relationship  of  J  and  E,  of 
J  and  Deut.,  also  of  Deut.  and  P  in  some  purely 
legal  parts  of  Deut,  e.g.  chaps,  xiv.  and  xix.  and 
foil.,  where  an  exact  distinction  of  sources  appears 
from  the  first  extremely  improbable ;  even  an 
approximately  accurate  date  is  absolutely  im- 
possible, as  the  history  of  Pentateuchal  criticism 
has  abundantly  proved. 

If  Old  Testament  science  only  assumes  again 
a  more  healthy  character,  it  is  also  to  be  hoped 

^  The  inquiries  on  this   subject  have  certainly  yielded  results 
differing  totally  from  one  another  ! 


EFFECT  ON  PREACHING    213 

that  love  for  the  Old  Testament  will  awake  again  : 
at  present  it  is  well-nigh  extinguished  ;  for  the 
early  enthusiasm  of  the  young  student  does  not 
last  long,  as  I  know  from  many  of  my  acquaint- 
ances. If  a  more  general  proof  is  wanted,  con- 
sider how  seldom  the  Old  Testament  is  preached 
on  to-day.  It  will  not  be  very  different  in  the 
instruction  of  youth.  But  if  our  people  are  not 
constantly  referred  to  the  Old  Testament  as  the 
basis  of  the  New,  the  New  Testament  must  become 
unintelligible  to  them,  and  the  person  of  Christ  a 
puzzle.  The  Old  Testament  is  made  disagreeable 
to  students  of  theology,  and  the  congregation  suffers. 

One     point     more     in     conclusion.       Modern  Modern 
criticism   often   claims  not  only  that  it   is  able  to  not 
retain   revelation  in  its  entirety,  which  we  had   to  s"®^^^^- 
describe  as  unlikely  ;  it  claims  also  that  it  reaches 
its    result   by   purely   scientific    investigation  ;   we 
have  shown  this  in  our  discussion  to  be  untenable. 
We  would  like  only  to  suggest  here  that  perhaps 
on  this  point  also  there  is   self-deception   on   the 
part  of  the  critics.      Wellhausen,  whom  others  have 
followed,  professes  (^Prolegomena,  p.    14)  to  have 
learned  from  Vatke  "  the  most  and  the  best  "  ;  but 
the  latter  arrived  at  his  construction  of  history  not 
by  unprejudiced  historical   investigation,  but   from 
his   purely  dogmatic  preconceptions  on   the  philo- 
sophy of  religion. 


214  ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT  ? 

Natural  Of  course,  if  all   revelation   is  a  priori  denied 

ine^t^o^  and  the  history  of  Israel  explained  only  by  natural 
religion  v.  development ;  if,  in  other  words,  it  is  settled  from 
revelation,  the  first  that  the  history  cannot  have  happened  as 
it  is  described  to  us  ;  if  it  is  asserted  that  the 
highest  point  of  the  history  of  a  people  can  never 
be  at  the  beginning,  then  all  discussion  is  hopeless, 
and  the  maxim  holds  good  :  De  principiis  non  est 
disputandum.  We  must  then  content  ourselves 
with  having  demonstrated  the  historical  appear- 
ance of  the  modern  construction  of  history  to  be 
unwarranted.  It  only  remains  to  us  to  make 
good  the  following  assertions  against  this  mode 
of  treating  the  philosophy  of  religion  : — 

1.  It  is  in  opposition  to  the  Old  Testament, 
which  everywhere  proclaims  a  Divine  revelation. 
It  is  thoroughly  unhistorical,  in  so  far  as  it  uses 
the  sources  otherwise  than  they  admit  of,  and  yet 
turns  them  to  advantage  so  far  as  they  agree  with  it. 

2.  It  is  at  present  carried  out  quite  inconsist- 
ently in  the  Old  Testament  ;  for  the  different 
religious  conceptions  of  the  particular  laws,  even 
according  to  criticism,  correspond  in  their  origin 
not  to  the  spirit  of  the  people,  but  always  to  the 
ideal  of  individuals  only.  The  people  as  a  whole 
are  still  almost  as  immature  as  before. 

3.  It  must,  to  be  consistent,  seek  to  understand 
the  revelation  in  Christ  as  a  natural  development 
also. 


REVELATION  PROGRESSIVE  215 

4.  It  must  regard  a  perfecting  of  religious  ideas 
beyond  Christ  as  not  only  possible,  but  necessary. 

Moreover,  it  is  not  the  case,  even  according  to 
the  Biblical  view,  that  the  complete  revelation  was 
made  at  the  beginning.  It  is,  rather,  prepared  for 
by  the  early  revelation  and  by  the  leading  of  the 
patriarchs.  Notwithstanding  the  revelation  in 
Moses,  a  progress  in  revelation  takes  place  within 
the  Old  Testament  (see  especially  the  ethical 
deepening  through  the  prophets  and  their  Mes- 
sianic prophecies).  Finally,  the  New  Testament  is 
self-evidently  a  vast  advance  upon  the  Old. 

But  if  we  believe  that  the  essential  elements  of 
the  Old  Testament  revelation  were  actually  in 
existence  at  the  time  of  Moses,  we  see  above  all  in 
the  further  course  of  Israelitish  history  a  develop- 
ment in  understanding  of  the  revelation  and  in 
agreement  with  it. 

The  author  would  be  delighted  if  his  "  considera- 
tions" should  prove  even  to  a  few  people  to  be  an 
inducement  to  reflection.  If  his  protest  should 
die  away  unheard,  like  that  of  so  many  others,  he 
has  at  any  rate  the  consciousness  of  having  done 
that  which  he  could  not  leave  undone. 


INDEX 

Agrarian     laws    in    PC    inexplicable    on    critical 

theory,  89 
Amalekites,  reference  to  ;  a  proof  of  earlier  date 

of  Deut.,  36 
Amos,  45,  105,  'd.Vid.  passim 
Ark,  laws  relating  to  the,  92,  174 
Auxiliary  hypotheses  of  modern  criticism,  99-1  50 

Baudissin,  History  of  O.  T.  Priesthood,  xxi 
Bredenkamp,    The   Law   and  the   Prophets,    xxii, 
23  n.,  50,  64,  100,  120 

Canaanites,    order    to    exterminate  ;     a    proof   of 

earlier  date  of  Deut.,  33 
Central  sanctuary,  46,  189 

1  Chronicles,  36 

2  Chronicles,  84  and  passim 
Clean  and  unclean,  laws  of,  176 
Cornill,  8,  17,  24,  64,  10 1  71. 

Covenant,  Books  of  the,  xix,  i  o,  and  passim 

Delitzsch,  Critical  Studies  in  the  Pentateuch,  xxii, 

26,  32,  172 
Deuteronomy,  xix,  1-55,  ^.nA  passim 
Development,  theory  of,  152,  207,  214 

217 


218   ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT? 

Dillmann,    The   Books   of  Numbers^  Deuteronomy^ 

and  Joshua,  xxii,  60,  68,  172 
Driver,  Deuteronomy,  $i  n. 

Eichthal,  Melanges  de  critique  bihlique,  41 

Exile,  threats  of,  in   Deut.  inconsistent  with  later 

date,  38 
Exodus,  xix,  8,  and  passim 
Ezekiel,  38,  114 

xl.-xlviii.,  70,  1 1 4- 14 1,  164 

Ezra  (Book  of),  149 

Ezra,  the  Law  as  read  by,  56 

Feasts,  the  three  great,  163,  178-187 

First-born,  law  of  the  redemption  of  the,  1 94- 1 96 

Genesis,  112,  167,  191 

Haggai,  73,  78,  148,  149 

Halle,  Tholuck  Institute,  xvi 

Havernick,   Introduction    to    the   Pentateuch,   xxii, 

32,  155 
Hengstenberg,  xxii,  39,  155,  169 
Hosea,  1 6  and  passim 

Isaiah,  16  d^nd  passim 

Jeremiah,  16,  21,  104.,  dind  passim 
Josiah's  reformation  and  the  law,  3-23 
Judges,  Book  of,  47,  49,  157 

Kautzsch,  History  of  O.  T.  Scriptures ,  4,  10,  23, 
50,  57,  64,  68,  80,  loi  n,,  113,  135 

Translation  of  the  Bible,  xviii 

Kayser,  62 


INDEX  219 

1  Kings,  88  2.x\^  passim 

2  Kings,  3  and  passim 
Kleinert,  D enter 07i07ny,  xxii,  2,  32 
Klostermann,  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch,  xxii,  73,  75 
Kohler,  Professor  (Erlangen),  xvi,  xxii,  70 
Kuenen,  14,  42 

Levites,  30,  6^,  124- 141 
Leviticus,  xix,  79,  and  passim 

Malachi,  JJ,  yZ,  85,  86 

Micah,  73  ^ndi  passim 

"  Mosaic  disguise "  alleged  by  critics  as  given  to 

books   later  than   time  of  Moses,  2-17,  51,  Z6, 

97,  166 

Nehemiah,  5  6  and  passim 

Non-existence  of  a  law  not  proved  by  its  violation, 

7-10,  150 
Nowack,  Kleine  Propheien,  149 
Numbers,  xix,  60,  82,  89,  2,x\^  passim 

Orelli,  Professor  von,  viii 

Passover,  historical  basis  of,  182-186 

Pentecost,  Feast  of,  181- 186 

Pious  fraud,  implied  by  the  critical  theory,  50,  94 

Preaching,  effect  of  O.  T.  criticism  on,  2  i  3 

Priestly  Code  in  the  Pentateuch,  xix,  55-160 

Priests  and  Levites, distinction  between,  124-141,198 

Prophets  on  sacrifice,  the,  106,  164 

Prophets,   relation   of  the,  to    the    Priestly   Code, 

99-114 
Proverbs,  1 1 4 
Psalms,  99,  142,  157 


220   ARE  THE  CRITICS  RIGHT  ? 

Reuss-Kayser  standpoint,  the,  64 
Robertson,  Early  Religion  of  Israel^  xxii,  49 

Sacrifices,  differences  between   PC  and   Deut.  on, 
190-194 

1  Samuel,  37>  47,  I58»  191 

2  Samuel,  1 1  3 

Sanctuary,  the  central,  46,  189 

Schulz,  Deuteronomy^  xxii,  32 

Schumann,  Wellhausen's  Theory  of  the  Pentateuch^ 

xxii 
Smend,  42,  1 19 
Stade,  42 

Steuernagel,  Origin  of  the  Deuteronomic  LaWy  42 
Strack-Zockler  Commentaries,  xxii,  148 

Tabernacle,  why  mentioned  in   PC   if  the  critics 

are  right?   72,  87-89 
Tabernacles,  Feast  of,  and  its  historical  basis,  183 
Tithe,  differences  between   PC   and   Deut.  on  the 

law  of,  201 
Tobit  i.  7  (the  second  tithe),  201 

Unscientific  character  of  modern  criticism,  147 
Urim    and    Thummim    inexplicable    on    critical 
theory  of  date  of  PC,  90 

Vatke,  dogmatic  preconceptions  of,  213 
Vernes,  Une  nouvelle  hypothese,  etc.,  41 

Wellhausen,  xv,  i ,  and  passim 
Wittenberg,  Theological  Seminary,  xvi 

Zadok  the  priest,  126-1 '^g,  139  n. 
Zechariah,  73,  78,  148 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 

Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recalL 

2Nov'60PW1 

,.^.'€»-i-» 

\^6^  u  ^^ 

0 

\ 

...*^ 

(A9562sl0)476B                                   ^'"'^^"Kfkel^ 

YB  ?I629 


Ml;^4S68 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


WITHDRAWN  FROM 
UNIVERSITY  OF  REDLANDS  LIBRARY 


